Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 22:51:04 +0100 From: Chris Rees <crees@freebsd.org> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, perl@freebsd.org, dougb@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: change to bsd.perl.mk Message-ID: <CADLo839j3akUhvVrr2Mb0gvCDNDL7U-pgbFx4WQzX9-4xW6DYw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CADLo839-NeBEcYwcGN%2BabuFxbUk%2BzFwBQ7dUNymh4_BFNkS-Nw@mail.gmail.com> References: <20110716212640.GA13201@lonesome.com> <CADLo839-NeBEcYwcGN%2BabuFxbUk%2BzFwBQ7dUNymh4_BFNkS-Nw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 16 Jul 2011 22:26, "Mark Linimon" <linimon@lonesome.com> wrote: > > > If bsd.perl.mk is going to be included unconditionally, what's the > > point of having it in a separate file? > > - perl team can make changes (e.g. minor version update of perl) > without -exp run and portmgr approval. (I would still prefer to do > -exp runs for major version updates, of course). > > - easier to read the code. > 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? Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo839j3akUhvVrr2Mb0gvCDNDL7U-pgbFx4WQzX9-4xW6DYw>