Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 19:45:57 -0400 From: Sahil Tandon <sahil@FreeBSD.org> To: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@missouri.edu> Cc: "cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org" <cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org>, Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@FreeBSD.org>, "cvs-all@FreeBSD.org" <cvs-all@FreeBSD.org>, "ports-committers@FreeBSD.org" <ports-committers@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/astro/orsa Makefile Message-ID: <20110616234556.GB19139@magic.hamla.org> In-Reply-To: <4DFA940C.2030909@missouri.edu> References: <201106162238.p5GMcfrV085514@repoman.freebsd.org> <20110616231146.GA19139@magic.hamla.org> <4DFA940C.2030909@missouri.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 18:38:52 -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > Sahil Tandon wrote: > >On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 22:38:41 +0000, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > > > >>stephen 2011-06-16 22:38:41 UTC > >> > >> FreeBSD ports repository > >> > >> Modified files: > >> astro/orsa Makefile > >> Log: > >> - Track updated dependency > >> - Bump PORTREVISION > > > >Please remember to bump other ports that are affected by the math/GiNaC > >shlib change. > > Already done. The only other port that uses math/GiNaC is > math/octave-forge-symbolic, and that port was updated at the same > time as math/GiNaC. Really? Then was this wrong a few months ago: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-ports/2011-March/213042.html > Here is a question. Should I bump portrevision of > math/octave-forge-symbolic anyway? Should one wait a day or so before > committing the bumps to avoid certain "race" conditions with > tinderbox, where it might build the port requiring the dependent > before rebuilding the dependent? I believe shlib-related PORTREVISION bumps should be committed right away. -- Sahil Tandon <sahil@FreeBSD.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110616234556.GB19139>