From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 23 12:30:31 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5C8516A420; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 12:30:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ade@lovett.com) Received: from mail.lovett.com (foo.lovett.com [67.134.38.158]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 811DD43D45; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 12:30:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ade@lovett.com) Received: from hellfire.canal.lovett.com ([172.16.32.20]:55446) by mail.lovett.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1FCFc6-0008Qp-Vt; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 04:30:30 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20060223125019.3f01dfd2@Magellan.Leidinger.net> References: <200602231043.k1NAhYlr080084@repoman.freebsd.org> <20060223125019.3f01dfd2@Magellan.Leidinger.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <159128AC-0A32-474E-9B9A-8EC8EFBEAF14@FreeBSD.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Ade Lovett Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 04:30:29 -0800 To: Alexander Leidinger X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) Sender: ade@lovett.com Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, Ade Lovett , ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/Mk bsd.autotools.mk X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 12:30:31 -0000 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