From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Mar 10 14:05:30 2004
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 1784316A4CE; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:05:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ob.icann.org (unknown [192.0.35.106])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id F3A2243D46; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:05:29 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from DougB@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by ob.icann.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i2AM5RCT001439;
	Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:05:27 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from DougB@FreeBSD.org)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:05:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org>
To: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>
In-Reply-To: <20040310033538.S9942@odysseus.silby.com>
Message-ID: <20040310140322.U875@bo.vpnaa.bet>
References: <200403100902.i2A922vx092031@repoman.freebsd.org>
	<20040310033538.S9942@odysseus.silby.com>
Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/
X-message-flag: Outlook -- Not just for spreading viruses anymore!
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: "cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org" <cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org>
cc: "ports-committers@FreeBSD.org" <ports-committers@FreeBSD.org>
cc: "cvs-all@FreeBSD.org" <cvs-all@FreeBSD.org>
cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/emulators/rtc Makefileports/emulators/rtc/files
 rtc.c
X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree <cvs-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ports>,
	<mailto:cvs-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ports>,
	<mailto:cvs-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:05:30 -0000

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Mike Silbersack wrote:

>
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> > >   *Actually* make rtc work on post-502104 -CURRENT.
> >
> > Is a PORTREVISION bump needed?
> >
> > Kris
>
> It couldn't hurt, thanks for the reminder.

I know I harp on this a lot, but I'm curious about this one. Why is a
portrevision bump useful here? I see two possibilities:

1. A user has a working version of the port.
2. A user did not have a working version of the port, therefore it
wasn't installed.

In the first case the bump is harmful, since it causes the user to
upgrade something for no benefit. In the second case, the bump is
meaningless.

Is there a part of this picture that I'm not seeing?

Doug

-- 

    This .signature sanitized for your protection