svn commit: r340925 - head/devel/py-singledispatch

[Marcus von Appen]

On, Fri Jan 24, 2014, Ruslan Makhmatkhanov wrote:

> Marcus von Appen wrote on 24.01.2014 23:06:
> > Author: mva
> > Date: Fri Jan 24 19:06:04 2014
> > New Revision: 340925
> > URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/340925
> > QAT: https://qat.redports.org/buildarchive/r340925/
> >
> > Log:
> >    - Convert USE_PYDISTUTILS=easy_install to yes
> >
> > Modified:
> >    head/devel/py-singledispatch/Makefile
> >
> > Modified: head/devel/py-singledispatch/Makefile
> > ==============================================================================
> > --- head/devel/py-singledispatch/Makefile	Fri Jan 24 19:04:50 2014	(r340924)
> > +++ head/devel/py-singledispatch/Makefile	Fri Jan 24 19:06:04 2014	(r340925)
> > @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ COMMENT=	provides single-dispatch generi
> >   LICENSE=	MIT
> >
> >   USE_PYTHON=	yes
> > -USE_PYDISTUTILS=	easy_install
> > +USE_PYDISTUTILS=	yes
> >   PYDISTUTILS_AUTOPLIST=	yes
> >
> >   .include <bsd.port.mk>
>
> Marcus, shouldn't changes like that follow PORTREVISION bump or I
> misunderstand something?

The package contents change, but it does not have any influence on
dependent ports nor on functionality nor on requirements. Thus
I do not see it as necessary to bump the port revision.

I'm fine however with bumping PORTREVISION, if that's the desired
approach of dealing with that.

Cheers
Marcus
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-ports-all/attachments/20140124/49cee3a5/attachment.sig>