Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 22:18:31 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r319792 - head/sysutils/fsc Message-ID: <20130603201831.GO12427@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <20130603155106.7f3e5826.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> References: <201306031632.r53GWPdP069628@svn.freebsd.org> <51ACC994.4060608@FreeBSD.org> <20130603133012.114c2ae7.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> <51ACDC95.4060600@FreeBSD.org> <20130603155106.7f3e5826.trhodes@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--5AmtYbcgdBTTPS58 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 03:51:06PM -0400, Tom Rhodes wrote: > On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 13:12:37 -0500 > Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >=20 > > On 6/3/2013 12:30 PM, Tom Rhodes wrote: > > > On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 11:51:32 -0500 > > > Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > >=20 > > >> This is bad form. If you are changing upstream code it should be a n= ew > > >> release version, not a reroll. We frequently have problems with other > > >> upstreams doing this and should follow our own guidelines. > > >=20 > > > I'm not bumping the version used for a simple gcc->clang warning > > > fix. That's why I just bumped PORTVERSION. If we want to do a > > > new version, I'll get ahold of the NetBSD people, who also work > > > with keeping a port, and discuss doing that. In this case, it > > > was a simple fix rather than adding a 2 line patch to a files/ > > > directory. > > >=20 > >=20 > > The proper way to do is this a new release, or a patch in files with a > > PORTREVISION, or a sed in post-patch. This is the convention. Rerolling > > upstream is a big no no. Rerolling is obscure and very frowned upon. > > This also impacts NetBSD if they are tracking checksums, and any other > > projects depending on the checksum of the upstream tarball. >=20 > I'll look at bumping the release version - there are some other > changes that need made anyway, I just wanted to fix the build so > users could build it again. In that case a patch in files/ is the way to go. >=20 > >=20 > > If you had a ports committer approve/review this change, which you > > should have and should do in the future, this would have been avoided. >=20 > I am a ports committer, sorry I forgot about this - considering I > commit to this area rarely. So you can remind me about the rule, > link to relevant documention, and I will remember for the future > or "fix" the issue. No attitude needed. According the following: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=3Drevision&revision=3D182927 You removed yourself your commit bit 6 years ago. regards, Bapt --5AmtYbcgdBTTPS58 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlGs+hcACgkQ8kTtMUmk6EyX5wCfTaMuCF/dEI4WbfsB7o16/Jor MT8An0FPUZPMDI5CBEc7QpDhy7guCcmt =Fq0p -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --5AmtYbcgdBTTPS58--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130603201831.GO12427>