svn commit: r477954 - head/databases/mantis
Dan Langille
dan at langille.org
Sat Aug 25 16:50:34 UTC 2018
> 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-head/attachments/20180825/029e1186/attachment.sig>
More information about the svn-ports-head
mailing list