cvs commit: ports/security/lsh Makefile ports/security/lsh/files patch-nettle-openssl.c

[Kris Kennaway]

On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 12:04:41AM +0200, G?bor K?vesd?n wrote:
> Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> >G?bor K?vesd?n p??e v so 12. 08. 2006 v 23:47 +0200:
> >  
> >>Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> >>    
> >>>pav         2006-08-12 21:26:07 UTC
> >>>
> >>>  FreeBSD ports repository
> >>>
> >>>  Modified files:
> >>>    security/lsh         Makefile 
> >>>  Added files:
> >>>    security/lsh/files   patch-nettle-openssl.c 
> >>>  Log:
> >>>  - Fix build on 4.X
> >>>  - Respect CC and CFLAGS
> >>>  
> >>>  PR:             ports/101750
> >>>  Submitted by:   Babak Farrokhi <babak at farrokhi.net> (maintainer)
> >>>  
> >>>  Revision  Changes    Path
> >>>  1.35      +2 -0      ports/security/lsh/Makefile
> >>>  1.1       +10 -0     ports/security/lsh/files/patch-nettle-openssl.c 
> >>>  (new)
> >>>      
> >
> >  
> >>I think it also needs a PORTREVISION bump if you make a port respect CC 
> >>since such change affects the build phase of the port.
> >>    
> >
> >Imagine you are user with already installed lsh; do you want to
> >recompile just because of this change?
> >  
> Yes, because I like optimized binaries. :)
> >Imagine you are user who downloads the package from the ftp site.
> >Do you mind you don't have this change?
> >
> >  
> No, of course not, but there are other cases when a user might not want 
> to do so, but they are require a PORTREVISION bump, e.g. adding 
> something specific thing to OPTIONS. If the give user doesn't use the 
> new functionality, (s)he will get the same, but portupgrade will notice 
> the bump at all.

Pav is correct that such a minor change does not warrant forcing all
users to upgrade.

Kris
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-ports/attachments/20060812/b12707ff/attachment.pgp