Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 04:30:29 -0800 From: Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/Mk bsd.autotools.mk Message-ID: <159128AC-0A32-474E-9B9A-8EC8EFBEAF14@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20060223125019.3f01dfd2@Magellan.Leidinger.net> References: <200602231043.k1NAhYlr080084@repoman.freebsd.org> <20060223125019.3f01dfd2@Magellan.Leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Feb 23, 2006, at 03:50 , Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Anything that should be added to UPDATING (e.g. "portupgrade -rf > x11-toolkits/gtk12" or something like that)? To be brutally honest, I don't know. In the case of the glib/gtk 1.2.x stuff, it would be against devel/glib12 rather than x11- toolkits/gtk12, but with 2000+ PORTREVISION bumps, I am working on the (possibly misguided) assumption that a regular "portupgrade" will take care of things. To that end, suggesting "portupgrade -af" in UPDATING seemed to be somewhat counter-productive. -aDe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?159128AC-0A32-474E-9B9A-8EC8EFBEAF14>