Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 00:52:52 -0400 From: Tim Vanderhoek <vanderh@ecf.utoronto.ca> To: Akinori MUSHA <knu@iDaemons.org> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/net/kdenetwork3 Makefile Message-ID: <20020902045252.GA72916@turquoise> In-Reply-To: <86bs7h5961.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org> References: <200209020344.g823iQRd028223@freefall.freebsd.org> <86bs7h5961.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 01:04:38PM +0900, Akinori MUSHA wrote: > At Sun, 1 Sep 2002 20:44:26 -0700 (PDT), > Tim Vanderhoek wrote: > > hoek 2002/09/01 20:44:26 PDT > > > > Modified files: > > net/kdenetwork3 Makefile > > Log: > > Update libuu shared lib dependency to libuu.2 > > > > Revision Changes Path > > 1.84 +1 -1 ports/net/kdenetwork3/Makefile > > When a shlib version is bumped, you should also bump PORTREVISION to > notify that the port needs updating. I think that the uulib dependency is actually completely bogus. I couldn't find any uulib code in either kdenetwork2 or kdenetwork3. In the case of kdenetwork2, I know that ldd(1) couldn't find any dependencies on uulib and I know that kdenetwork2 compiles succesfully without uulib (kdenetwork3 simply wouldn't compile for me due to other non-uulib problems). I intend to remove the uulib dependency instead; I'm just waiting for an ack from kde@FreeBSD.org. Since these are large ports, I don't want to bump PORTREVISION if the uulib dependency is actually bogus (which I'm pretty sure it is). Sound reasonable? However, I did neglect to bump PORTREVISION for tin. Now fixed. :) -- If I could think of a two-line witty aphorism for you to remember me by, this would definitely be it. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020902045252.GA72916>