Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 19:35:51 -0500 From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: Chris Rees <crees@freebsd.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, perl@freebsd.org, dougb@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: change to bsd.perl.mk Message-ID: <20110717003551.GA17969@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <CADLo839j3akUhvVrr2Mb0gvCDNDL7U-pgbFx4WQzX9-4xW6DYw@mail.gmail.com> References: <20110716212640.GA13201@lonesome.com> <CADLo839-NeBEcYwcGN%2BabuFxbUk%2BzFwBQ7dUNymh4_BFNkS-Nw@mail.gmail.com> <CADLo839j3akUhvVrr2Mb0gvCDNDL7U-pgbFx4WQzX9-4xW6DYw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:51:04PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote: > If it's unconditionally included, how does that exempt it from exp-runs? > > Surely it's equally risky to commit to it as bsd.port.mk, or have I missed > something? In a perfect world we'd have -exp runs for everything, I suppose. OTOH here in the real world there's plenty of lower-risk changes that can be done without. If in doubt, we can always do one. Take a look a the various commits in ports/Mk for examples of what's been done in the past. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110717003551.GA17969>