From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 13 19:35:22 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0903616A4CE for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:35:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from carrick.bishnet.net (carrick.bishnet.net [217.204.9.201]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C38A43D62 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:35:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tim-lists@bishnet.net) Received: from 82-68-45-195.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk ([82.68.45.195]) by carrick.bishnet.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.42 (FreeBSD)) id 1CHou4-000Nsw-Fd; Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:35:16 +0100 From: Tim Bishop To: John Nielsen In-Reply-To: <200410131316.12430.john@jnielsen.net> References: <200410131021.30311.john@jnielsen.net> <20041013162708.GO22274@toxic.magnesium.net> <200410131316.12430.john@jnielsen.net> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1097696115.48373.1.camel@inferno.sixth.bishnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:35:15 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bishnet-MailScanner-Information: Contact postmaster@bishnet.net X-Bishnet-MailScanner-VirusCheck: Found to be clean X-Bishnet-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-4.9, required 5, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -4.90) X-Bishnet-MailScanner-From: tim-lists@bishnet.net cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: how to "downgrade" a port in the tree X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:35:22 -0000 On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 20:16, John Nielsen wrote: > On Wednesday 13 October 2004 10:27 am, Adam Weinberger wrote: > > >> (10.13.2004 @ 1221 PST): John Nielsen said, in 1.3K: << > > > I'm not much of a programmer, but I am the port maintainer for the > > > mail/hotwayd port. The version in the tree is the latest available > > > version, hotwayd 0.8. However, there are some serious bugs in this > > > version that result in mangled e-mail headers. > > > Downgrading a port is perfectly acceptable in this situation. If you > > cannot patch the 0.80 sources to unmangle the email addresses, submit a > > PR downgrading it back to 0.74. All you need to do there is add > > PORTEPOCH= 1 > > One more question: If at some point a new version (say 0.8.1) is released, > will I need to do anything special to indicate that it is preferred over > hotwayd-0.7.4,1? Should I remove the portepoch line, leave it alone, or > bump it up? Leave the PORTEPOCH line - it can't go backwards now. If a new version is released just increment the version as normal, leaving PORTEPOCH alone. Tim. -- Tim Bishop http://www.bishnet.net/tim PGP Key: 0x5AE7D984