Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 00:04:41 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?G=E1bor_K=F6vesd=E1n?= <gabor@FreeBSD.org> To: pav@FreeBSD.org Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/security/lsh Makefile ports/security/lsh/files patch-nettle-openssl.c Message-ID: <44DE5079.8010807@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <1155419695.12089.0.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> References: <200608122126.k7CLQ7qN091943@repoman.freebsd.org> <44DE4C6F.4040707@FreeBSD.org> <1155419695.12089.0.camel@ikaros.oook.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Pav Lucistnik wrote: > Gábor Kövesdán píše v so 12. 08. 2006 v 23:47 +0200: > >> Pav Lucistnik wrote: >> >>> pav 2006-08-12 21:26:07 UTC >>> >>> FreeBSD ports repository >>> >>> Modified files: >>> security/lsh Makefile >>> Added files: >>> security/lsh/files patch-nettle-openssl.c >>> Log: >>> - Fix build on 4.X >>> - Respect CC and CFLAGS >>> >>> PR: ports/101750 >>> Submitted by: Babak Farrokhi <babak@farrokhi.net> (maintainer) >>> >>> Revision Changes Path >>> 1.35 +2 -0 ports/security/lsh/Makefile >>> 1.1 +10 -0 ports/security/lsh/files/patch-nettle-openssl.c (new) >>> > > >> I think it also needs a PORTREVISION bump if you make a port respect CC >> since such change affects the build phase of the port. >> > > Imagine you are user with already installed lsh; do you want to > recompile just because of this change? > Yes, because I like optimized binaries. :) > Imagine you are user who downloads the package from the ftp site. > Do you mind you don't have this change? > > No, of course not, but there are other cases when a user might not want to do so, but they are require a PORTREVISION bump, e.g. adding something specific thing to OPTIONS. If the give user doesn't use the new functionality, (s)he will get the same, but portupgrade will notice the bump at all. -- Cheers, Gabor
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44DE5079.8010807>