Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:19:02 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Dejan Lesjak <dejan.lesjak@ijs.si> Cc: Dejan Lesjak <lesi@FreeBSD.org>, Michael Johnson <ahze@ahze.net>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/astro/gpsdrive pkg-plist ports/audio/gqmpeg-devel pkg-plist ports/databases/pgworksheet pkg-plist ports/deskutils/hot-babe pkg-plist ports/deskutils/xchm pkg-plist ports/editors/abiword-devel pkg-plist ports/games/crimson ... Message-ID: <20050615161902.GA81527@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <200506151442.22406.dejan.lesjak@ijs.si> References: <200506150243.j5F2habT053985@repoman.freebsd.org> <200506151352.48180.dejan.lesjak@ijs.si> <20050615141103.lupteudmxccko4ww@netchild.homeip.net> <200506151442.22406.dejan.lesjak@ijs.si>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--EVF5PPMfhYS0aIcm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:42:21PM +0200, Dejan Lesjak wrote: > On Wednesday 15 of June 2005 14:11, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > > Dejan Lesjak <dejan.lesjak@ijs.si> wrote: > > > Well, if they are empty, why not? It is actually rather unavoidable. I > > > could be missing something, but this is how I understand things: > > > > Technically we don't need to update the revisions, but our policy (as f= ar > > as I understand it) is: if the plist changes, we bump the revision. > > > > I will not complain if you don't bump the revisions of affected ports (= e.g. > > when nobody else thinks the ports need a revision bump), I just mention= ed > > the common practice so far. >=20 > Sure, and I'm just trying to explain why I think the bump is not needed i= n=20 > this case and hopefully make you agree on this :) Basically I was trying = to=20 > stick with this part of Porter's Handbook: >=20 > A rule of thumb is to ask yourself whether a change committed to a port i= s=20 > something which everyone would benefit from having (either because of an= =20 > enhancement, fix, or by virtue that the new package will actually work at= =20 > all), and weigh that against that fact that it will cause everyone who=20 > regularly updates their ports tree to be compelled to update. If yes, the= =20 > PORTREVISION should be bumped. >=20 > And I did not think that this change is compelling enough to cause everyo= ne to=20 > update this ports. I agree. This should not cause anyone any hardship. Kris --EVF5PPMfhYS0aIcm Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFCsFT2Wry0BWjoQKURAissAJ9Z6mNI7dDQd1an3iSscRWBK0Bw6wCguM5V oUYEnYAY6otw+3DwipMicQ8= =4DwE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --EVF5PPMfhYS0aIcm--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050615161902.GA81527>