From owner-freebsd-ports Thu Aug 29 9:30:10 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E6A937B401 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:30:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7198143E72 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:30:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g7TGU3JU004757 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:30:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Submit) id g7TGU3oq004754; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:30:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:30:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200208291630.g7TGU3oq004754@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: bmah@packetdesign.com (Bruce A. Mah) Subject: Re: ports/42134: linux-gtk PORTREVISION contaminates other ports Reply-To: bmah@packetdesign.com (Bruce A. Mah) Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR ports/42134; it has been noted by GNATS. From: bmah@packetdesign.com (Bruce A. Mah) To: Trevor Johnson Cc: "Bruce A. Mah" , FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports/42134: linux-gtk PORTREVISION contaminates other ports Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:29:51 -0700 --==_Exmh_-1095512078P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii If memory serves me right, Trevor Johnson wrote: > If, instead of including the linux-gtk Makefile, those other ports (and > linux-gtk itself) included some other Makefile without a PORTREVISION > line, then the problem would be solved, wouldn't it? The appropriate > place for such a Makefile would likely be in ports/Mk/ An excellent idea, but my ports-fu isn't good enough to do that. :-p The current behavior is pretty broken. I'd really like to see this fixed one way or another, either with my gross hack or with your much cleaner suggestion. > (calling it > bsd.redhat.mk could result in legal problems). Why? Bruce. --==_Exmh_-1095512078P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) Comment: Exmh on FreeBSD iD8DBQE9bkv/2MoxcVugUsMRAmJCAJ9sU5Eqk3WgizC/FEiQi2XIUGgStgCfUdAZ yBMQLHFKq2rOLBzCzV4b7jA= =8ph3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-1095512078P-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message