Bumping libreoffice

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 09:19:27PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 07:50:26PM +0100, Dominic Fandrey wrote:
> > Please take note of Porters' Handbook section 5.2.2.1.
> > 
> > Build fixes are NOT a reason to bump portrevision!
> > 
> 
> Working on ports like LibreOffice is painful enough to have such aggressive
> reaction. First the bump is deserved just because the package with default
> options changed and to help the maintainers knowing exactly which version people
> are building when they report failures.
> Second LibreOffice is really hard to get building with all the different variation
> of the ports people can have ( mixed libstdc++, not uptodate version of dependencies,
> people with weird cflags and ldflags, and so.
> Jung-uk Kim is doing a terrific work that is totally uneasy. He manages to get
> LibreOffice building correctly and working without too much revision bump.
> 
> Have a look at the history Jung-uk has never done any graticious bump on this
> port.
> 
> I personnally resigned on maintaining LibreOffice exactly because of reactions
> like this one, (also because Jung-uk Kim is actually doing a far better job on
> it than me :)).
> 
> regards,
> Bapt


Sorry I probably over-reacted because I still remember the frustrations from
when I maintained LibreOffice.

Bapt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-office/attachments/20130208/126f8fe3/attachment.sig>