From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 16 15:30:49 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA8F7106566B for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:30:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rfarmer@predatorlabs.net) Received: from mail-vw0-f54.google.com (mail-vw0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81F9B8FC0C for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:30:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vws1 with SMTP id 1so897737vws.13 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 08:30:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.176.1 with SMTP id bc1mr397159vcb.16.1287243048266; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 08:30:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.188.3 with HTTP; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 08:30:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [128.95.133.227] Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 08:30:48 -0700 Message-ID: From: Rob Farmer To: freebsd-ports Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: No-op port updates X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:30:49 -0000 What is the best practice for no-op port updates - i.e. version 1.0 and 1.1 produce identical FreeBSD packages but they might be different on Linux/elsewhere? Update to have to port appear "current" or avoid forcing people to do unnecessary updates? -- Rob Farmer