p5-Email-Address woes

[Matthew Seaman]

On 23/07/2013 07:33, milki wrote:
> On 16:14 Mon 22 Jul     , Mark Felder wrote:
>> Is it possible a test-case could be made and used before committing
>> updates to this port in the future? Or should we just yell loudly at
>> upstream?
> 
> Both are in order. As the maintainer is the general perl@, it would be
> a little harder to make sure the maintainers and committers would all be
> wary of the test-case though.
> 
> The a solution could be to submit a regression test upstream and
> patch the port for the current version if a patch is known. If no patch
> is known, then it would be best to mark it broken for users who want
> unicode support (conditional BROKEN if a PORT_OPTIONS:MUTF8 maybe?).kk

I'll update the www/rt40 port to require p5-Email-Address>=1.895 this
evening.  Or rather >=1.89.8 given that's the current version in ports.

	Cheers,

	Matthew