Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 11:06:28 +0300 From: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> To: "David W. Chapman Jr." <dwcjr@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/mail/mutt-devel Makefile pkg-plist Message-ID: <20010903110628.G72833@ringworld.oblivion.bg> In-Reply-To: <200109030549.f835nDa75558@freefall.freebsd.org>; from dwcjr@FreeBSD.org on Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 10:49:13PM -0700 References: <200109030549.f835nDa75558@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 10:49:13PM -0700, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote: > dwcjr 2001/09/02 22:49:13 PDT > > Modified files: > mail/mutt-devel Makefile pkg-plist > Log: > Update PORTDOC compliance > > Submitted by: maintainer Aside from the use of %%PORTDOCS%% mentioned by others, I think that both this and rev. 1.126 should have bumped PORTREVISION. IIRC, the rule for bumping PORTREVISION is that any change which modifies the package should be indicated as such. The previous commit would have modified a package built with a different LOCALBASE, and this commit would have modified a package built with NOPORTDOCS (e.g. a custom release build). Or am I going too far? :) G'luck, Peter -- This sentence contradicts itself - or rather - well, no, actually it doesn't! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010903110628.G72833>