svn commit: r343559 - head/net-p2p/litecoin

[John Marino]

On 2/10/2014 02:17, Steve Wills wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 11:29:17PM +0000, John Marino wrote:
>> Author: marino
>> Date: Sun Feb  9 23:29:16 2014
>> New Revision: 343559
>> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/343559
>> QAT: https://qat.redports.org/buildarchive/r343559/
>>
>> Log:
>>   net-p2p/litecoin: Fix DragonFly (broken by OSVERSION)
>>   
>>   Limit OSVERSION-based modifications to FreeBSD.  This port suddenly
>>   broken and the use of OSVERSION without OPSYS was the cause.
>>
>> Modified:
>>   head/net-p2p/litecoin/Makefile
>>
>> Modified: head/net-p2p/litecoin/Makefile
>> ==============================================================================
>> --- head/net-p2p/litecoin/Makefile	Sun Feb  9 23:18:17 2014	(r343558)
>> +++ head/net-p2p/litecoin/Makefile	Sun Feb  9 23:29:16 2014	(r343559)
>> @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ QMAKE_USE_DBUS=	0
>>  PLIST_FILES+=	share/applications/litecoin-qt.desktop share/pixmaps/litecoin64.png
>>  .endif
>>  
>> -.if ${OSVERSION} >= 1000054
>> +.if ${OPSYS} == FreeBSD && ${OSVERSION} >= 1000054
>>  EXTRA_PATCHES+=	${FILESDIR}/extra-patch-endian
>>  .endif
>>  
> 
> Shouldn't this have required maintainer approval? Or am I confused?
> 

According to _my_ interpretation of the "just fix it" blanket, no.  This
is on par with a typographical error.  The cause of the recent breakage
is obvious, the fix is obvious, there's no reason for the maintainer to
object.  Why would an OSVERSION fix require the formality of maintainer
approval?

John