From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 25 23:50:41 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7BED16A41C for ; Wed, 25 May 2005 23:50:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from boris@brooknet.com.au) Received: from bloodwood.hunterlink.net.au (smtp-local.hunterlink.net.au [203.12.144.17]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CAEA43D53 for ; Wed, 25 May 2005 23:50:40 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from boris@brooknet.com.au) Received: from ppp2657.dyn.pacific.net.au (ppp2657.dyn.pacific.net.au [61.8.38.87]) by bloodwood.hunterlink.net.au (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j4PNoaqF004729; Thu, 26 May 2005 09:50:37 +1000 From: Sam Lawrance To: Boris Samorodov In-Reply-To: <20596114@srv.sem.ipt.ru> References: <3578.146.6.135.76.1116702794.squirrel@mail.cm.utexas.edu> <20648162@srv.sem.ipt.ru> <43618.146.6.178.5.1117033514.squirrel@mail.cm.utexas.edu> <1117034205.1821.28.camel@dirk.no.domain> <41326.146.6.178.5.1117038317.squirrel@mail.cm.utexas.edu> <20596114@srv.sem.ipt.ru> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 09:51:23 +1000 Message-Id: <1117065083.861.2.camel@dirk.no.domain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.2 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: virenp@mail.utexas.edu, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Aide port broken in 5.4? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 23:50:42 -0000 On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 20:44 +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote: > On Wed, 25 May 2005 11:25:17 -0500 (CDT) Viren Patel wrote: > > > pkg_info on the 5.3 system says it's Aide-0.10_1. The > > Makefile says is 0.10_1. The Makefiles on both are the > > same except for the Makefile version number and the BROKEN > > line in the 5.4. Running "aide --version" on both 5.3 and > > 5.4 reports 0.10. So I am not sure what's going on here. > > As I understand part 5.2.2.1 "PORT REVISION" of the Porter's Handbook > if a port got to have marked as BROKEN, there is no reason to change > the port_revision_number. And the same is when the port is got to be > unmarked. Yes, bad choice of words on my part. I should have said you probably have different Makefile versions, which is what I meant.