cvs commit: ports/net/trafshow Makefile distinfo

Doug Barton dougb at
Tue Mar 1 05:37:54 UTC 2011

On 2/28/2011 5:35 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 01:18:32 -0300, Marcelo Araujo wrote:
>>>   On 02/27/2011 11:32, Sahil Tandon wrote:
>>> If the IPv6 option is off by default (and thus, does not affect the
>>> default package), why do you bump PORTREVISION?  I just want to
>>> understand for my own edification when dealing with similar
>>> situations.
>> Well, I've used the latest paragraph that discribe when we should bump
>> """A rule of thumb is to ask yourself whether a change committed to a
>> port is something which someone, somewhere, would benefit from having
>> (either because of an enhancement, fix, or by virtue that the new
>> package will actually work for them). If yes, the PORTREVISION should
>> be bumped

If you stop here, Marcelo's action seems perfectly reasonable, 
especially for a tool that's a) very fast to compile, b) not a critical 
dependency, c) doesn't update versions often, and d) growing a 
substantive new feature.

And yes, I know I'm talking out of both sides of my head on this, my 
point being that reasonable minds can differ on what the right decision 
was here. :)

Meanwhile, Marcelo I was being somewhat glib about defaulting all IPv6 
options to "ON," but if you intend to do that please first test whether 
or not the tool is able to cope with having IPv6 support compiled in, 
but no INET6 in the kernel. If it still works ok then by all means you 
should default it to on.

Doug (who will try not to be so glib next time)


	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
			-- OK Go

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)

More information about the cvs-ports mailing list