Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 15:45:45 +0000 From: Steve Wills <swills@FreeBSD.org> To: marino@FreeBSD.org Cc: svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r343559 - head/net-p2p/litecoin Message-ID: <20140210154545.GB99571@mouf.net> In-Reply-To: <52F87BB2.3070402@marino.st> References: <201402092329.s19NTHiq089517@svn.freebsd.org> <20140210011718.GA79272@mouf.net> <52F87BB2.3070402@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 08:11:46AM +0100, John Marino wrote: > On 2/10/2014 02:17, Steve Wills wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 11:29:17PM +0000, John Marino wrote: > >> Author: marino > >> Date: Sun Feb 9 23:29:16 2014 > >> New Revision: 343559 > >> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/343559 > >> QAT: https://qat.redports.org/buildarchive/r343559/ > >> > >> Log: > >> net-p2p/litecoin: Fix DragonFly (broken by OSVERSION) > >> > >> Limit OSVERSION-based modifications to FreeBSD. This port suddenly > >> broken and the use of OSVERSION without OPSYS was the cause. > >> > >> Modified: > >> head/net-p2p/litecoin/Makefile > >> > >> Modified: head/net-p2p/litecoin/Makefile > >> ============================================================================== > >> --- head/net-p2p/litecoin/Makefile Sun Feb 9 23:18:17 2014 (r343558) > >> +++ head/net-p2p/litecoin/Makefile Sun Feb 9 23:29:16 2014 (r343559) > >> @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ QMAKE_USE_DBUS= 0 > >> PLIST_FILES+= share/applications/litecoin-qt.desktop share/pixmaps/litecoin64.png > >> .endif > >> > >> -.if ${OSVERSION} >= 1000054 > >> +.if ${OPSYS} == FreeBSD && ${OSVERSION} >= 1000054 > >> EXTRA_PATCHES+= ${FILESDIR}/extra-patch-endian > >> .endif > >> > > > > Shouldn't this have required maintainer approval? Or am I confused? > > > > According to _my_ interpretation of the "just fix it" blanket, no. This > is on par with a typographical error. The cause of the recent breakage > is obvious, the fix is obvious, there's no reason for the maintainer to > object. Why would an OSVERSION fix require the formality of maintainer > approval? Ah, ok. Works for me. I only noticed it because I was removing those lines and got a conflict. I didn't even know we were supporting DragonFly now, but I guess I missed a memo as usual. Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140210154545.GB99571>