Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 20:18:40 +0100 From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> To: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, John Marino <marino@FreeBSD.org>, jwbacon@tds.net, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r370220 - in head/biology: . ncbi-blast Message-ID: <86387zfur3.fsf@nine.des.no> In-Reply-To: <54A04955.3010601@marino.st> (John Marino's message of "Sun, 28 Dec 2014 19:17:57 %2B0100") References: <201410062016.s96KGZP8084850@svn.freebsd.org> <86r3vjg054.fsf@nine.des.no> <54A04955.3010601@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> writes: > It's a brand new port with a unique name. Why is "bumping PORTEPOCH" > considered necessary? The original BLAST is at 2.2.26, while BLAST+ is at 2.2.30. > Why is the existence of this port blocking the introduction of a new > BLAST port? It is not BLAST, but is called blast. > It seems that all that is needs is to update the pkg-descr file to > specify it's the blast+ implementation. BLAST and BLAST+ are two different programs. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86387zfur3.fsf>