Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 18:04:13 -0400 From: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, bdrewery@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r319792 - head/sysutils/fsc Message-ID: <20130603180413.7fbe7366.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20130603201831.GO12427@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> References: <201306031632.r53GWPdP069628@svn.freebsd.org> <51ACC994.4060608@FreeBSD.org> <20130603133012.114c2ae7.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> <51ACDC95.4060600@FreeBSD.org> <20130603155106.7f3e5826.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> <20130603201831.GO12427@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 22:18:31 +0200 Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > 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: > > > > > 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: > > > > > > > >> This is bad form. If you are changing upstream code it should be a new > > > >> release version, not a reroll. We frequently have problems with other > > > >> upstreams doing this and should follow our own guidelines. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > 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. I think the changes are a version bump - I'm working with some NetBSD people on this, so I'll discuss with them. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > 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=revision&revision=182927 > > You removed yourself your commit bit 6 years ago. That's right, so my statement should have been, properly: "At one point, I was a ports committer ..." ;) -- Tom Rhodes
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130603180413.7fbe7366.trhodes>