Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 15:07:14 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: x11@FreeBSD.org, Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: ImageMagick bump Message-ID: <20070505190714.GC21388@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20070505190103.GB21388@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20070505170012.GA62735@xor.obsecurity.org> <1178389743.55607.8.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <20070505183147.GA20810@xor.obsecurity.org> <1178389962.55607.10.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <20070505185138.GA21388@xor.obsecurity.org> <1178391323.55607.13.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <20070505190103.GB21388@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 03:01:03PM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 02:55:23PM -0400, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > > On Sat, 2007-05-05 at 14:51 -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 02:32:42PM -0400, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > > > > On Sat, 2007-05-05 at 14:31 -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > > > On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 02:29:03PM -0400, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, 2007-05-05 at 13:00 -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > > > > > It looks like ImageMagick depends on fontconfig but didnt get bumped, > > > > > > > can you confirm? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also I wonder about ports that have optional dependencies on > > > > > > > fontconfig, we should probably bump them too to be safe (otherwise > > > > > > > people will have stale references to /usr/X11R6 in .la files again) > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, ImageMagick should have been bumped, but was not. There are > > > > > > only two ports by my count that have fontconfig as an optional disabled > > > > > > dependency. I will recheck my script to see why some ports were not > > > > > > bumped. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > I found the problem. My script didn't take DISTVERSION into account. I > > > > will send out a new, complete tarball shortly. > > > > > > Maybe a diff against previous bumpage would be better, if > > > possible...flz? > > > > That would be very hard to generate at this point. I mean, it would be > > trivial if I was allowed to re-bump the ports that had already been > > bumped. Otherwise I'd have to manually fiddle with my list. > > OK, I guess flz will just have to cope :) Actually you could create a diff by producing two trees: one with your previous patch applied and one with your rerun of the bump script. Or flz could. Kris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070505190714.GC21388>