Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:19:37 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Wesley Shields <wxs@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/net-im/libpurple Makefile Message-ID: <49C84339.60201@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20090324021518.GC1292@atarininja.org> References: <200903240023.n2O0NVBb013624@repoman.freebsd.org> <49C84088.9020505@FreeBSD.org> <20090324021518.GC1292@atarininja.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Wesley Shields wrote: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 07:08:08PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: >> Wesley Shields wrote: >>> wxs 2009-03-24 00:23:31 UTC >>> >>> FreeBSD ports repository >>> >>> Modified files: >>> net-im/libpurple Makefile >>> Log: >>> - Chase devel/silc-toolkit update. >>> >>> Revision Changes Path >>> 1.58 +1 -1 ports/net-im/libpurple/Makefile >>> >>> http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/net-im/libpurple/Makefile.diff?&r1=1.57&r2=1.58&f=h >> Since silc is off by default (and therefore the package won't change), >> was this necessary? > > There are two viewpoints to this: > > 1) The option is off by default so the package won't change, and thus > PORTREVISION doesn't need to be bumped. > > 2) Not bumping PORTREVISION may cause the port to misbehave if it's > built with old libraries. I don't see the logic in this. The port works just fine right now with the old libraries. Can you be more specific about the scenario you're concerned about? Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49C84339.60201>