No-op port updates

Peter Pentchev roam at
Sat Oct 16 21:50:13 UTC 2010

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 09:47:55AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 10/16/2010 8:30 AM, Rob Farmer wrote:
> >What is the best practice for no-op port updates - i.e. version 1.0
> >and 1.1 produce identical FreeBSD packages but they might be different
> >on Linux/elsewhere? Update to have to port appear "current" or avoid
> >forcing people to do unnecessary updates?
> When faced with similar situations in the past I have chosen not to
> update, until the whinging became too extreme. :)  This is one of
> those where there is no "right" answer.

I've sometimes added a comment to the port's Makefile explaining
the needlessness of an update.


Peter Pentchev	roam at    roam at    roam at
PGP key:
Key fingerprint	FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E  DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553
This sentence was in the past tense.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url :

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list