svn commit: r477954 - head/databases/mantis

[Dan Langille]

> On Aug 25, 2018, at 9:37 AM, Tobias Kortkamp <tobik at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2018, at 15:26, Thomas Zander wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 at 12:33, Tobias Kortkamp <tobik at freebsd.org> wrote:
>> 
>>>  The checksums and sizes from 2.9.0 and 2.15.0 are identical because
>>>  GH_TAGNAME was not updated as well, so the update to 2.15.0 never
>>>  actually happened.
>>> +PORTEPOCH=     1
>> 
>> Wouldn't it have made more sense to perform the actual update rather
>> than have another port with PORTEPOCH (which is really a last-resort
>> workaround)?
> 
> Updating things correctly takes time.  In the meantime we should not
> pretend we have 2.15.0 when we do not, especially if this is supposed
> to solve some security problems.
> 
> The update attempt is in https://reviews.freebsd.org/D16890 and is
> waiting for some feedback to make sure it actually works not only
> for me.  I would appreciate some real feedback rather than nitpicking
> about now having PORTEPOCH.

Once PORTEPOCH is used, it should never be removed.

https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/makefile-naming.html <https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/makefile-naming.html>

"Dropping or resetting PORTEPOCH incorrectly leads to no end of grief."

I suggest leaving PORTEPOCH untouched.

--
Dan Langille - BSDCan / PGCon
dan at langille.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 658 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-ports-all/attachments/20180825/029e1186/attachment.sig>