Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 18:37:28 -0500 From: Mikhail Teterin <mi+mill@aldan.algebra.com> To: "Jeremy Messenger" <mezz7@cox.net> Cc: cvs-ports@freebsd.org, pav@freebsd.org, Norikatsu Shigemura <nork@freebsd.org>, cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: obsoleteing PORTREVISION bumps (Re: cvs commit: ports/devel/icu) Message-ID: <200802071837.29761.mi%2Bmill@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: <op.t56f0ir79aq2h7@mezz.mezzweb.com> References: <200802070531.m175VikU015939@repoman.freebsd.org> <200802071801.38477.mi%2Bmill@aldan.algebra.com> <op.t56f0ir79aq2h7@mezz.mezzweb.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
=DE=C5=D4=D7=C5=D2 07 =CC=C0=D4=C9=CA 2008 06:10 =D0=CF, Jeremy Messenger = =F7=C9 =CE=C1=D0=C9=D3=C1=CC=C9: > What about the users that who are using ports, not packages? What about them? Which scenario do you foresee breaking? > The PORTREVISION is needed or/and add info in /usr/ports/UPDATING about = =9A > reinstall these ports that depend on icu. I don't think, PORTREVISION bump is needed in these cases -- only when the= =20 port itself is changed. Any changes due to build-dependencies=20 (lib-dependencies among them) should be tracked independently. -mi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200802071837.29761.mi%2Bmill>