svn commit: r477954 - head/databases/mantis

Sat Aug 25 13:27:04 UTC 2018

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)?