Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2018 12:50:31 -0400 From: Dan Langille <dan@langille.org> To: Tobias Kortkamp <tobik@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Thomas Zander <thomas.e.zander@googlemail.com>, "ports-committers@FreeBSD.org" <ports-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r477954 - head/databases/mantis Message-ID: <22C5E027-82CE-4872-8C7E-9A1FB7384F24@langille.org> In-Reply-To: <1535204236.17355.1485877008.5294DAC3@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <201808241032.w7OAWkSq077323@repo.freebsd.org> <CAFU734x6u%2BFAA1BaExqnm%2BR10BsR6jLK2dL=-6zAVrSfANM3Tg@mail.gmail.com> <1535204236.17355.1485877008.5294DAC3@webmail.messagingengine.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Apple-Mail=_E0E80B90-C47C-4AEE-8361-A7DB74FB156B Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > On Aug 25, 2018, at 9:37 AM, Tobias Kortkamp <tobik@FreeBSD.org> = wrote: >=20 > On Sat, Aug 25, 2018, at 15:26, Thomas Zander wrote: >> On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 at 12:33, Tobias Kortkamp <tobik@freebsd.org> = wrote: >>=20 >>> The checksums and sizes from 2.9.0 and 2.15.0 are identical because >>> GH_TAGNAME was not updated as well, so the update to 2.15.0 never >>> actually happened. >>> +PORTEPOCH=3D 1 >>=20 >> Wouldn't it have made more sense to perform the actual update rather >> than have another port with PORTEPOCH (which is really a last-resort >> workaround)? >=20 > Updating things correctly takes time. In the meantime we should not > pretend we have 2.15.0 when we do not, especially if this is supposed > to solve some security problems. >=20 > The update attempt is in https://reviews.freebsd.org/D16890 and is > waiting for some feedback to make sure it actually works not only > for me. I would appreciate some real feedback rather than nitpicking > about now having PORTEPOCH. Once PORTEPOCH is used, it should never be removed. = https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/makefile-naming.html= = <https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/makefile-naming.htm= l> "Dropping or resetting PORTEPOCH incorrectly leads to no end of grief." I suggest leaving PORTEPOCH untouched. -- Dan Langille - BSDCan / PGCon dan@langille.org --Apple-Mail=_E0E80B90-C47C-4AEE-8361-A7DB74FB156B Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQGTBAEBCgB9FiEEzqcJ4oeyf8sgTIEBIU09XU2nXtMFAluBiNdfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldENF QTcwOUUyODdCMjdGQ0IyMDRDODEwMTIxNEQzRDVENERBNzVFRDMACgkQIU09XU2n XtMYAAf8CT3GhborlMiULIaNsKP65Dh4DRvkkOHoYsf40z794dAtdYBbez9ScKe5 KJEEHzSfSJ8xcZO3LnjNindZS3opxBfWCTM6u9NQujn0f1SLGwmJUDaRNVV2zA57 /OOGaoNj1XbEl0lZHSzSO+ey/59aykF7T1vXT0kvVrZByRQrBo+/3mKEjr4OxG8p /QVg3PsNozWL+50FD/N7uZSzDkCOkQ1pGnjIFIek3ccKuG8V5Yn12skMIZfioe1T ZcRerd4ZKepNC7tDUEjhQHduSpkF6klEyVEnBsggI5YPlxkX+oy1YVz7KczcomXB WV+1i3lHtKlXxvUKP4ITxMdy7gLIzw== =0ELy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_E0E80B90-C47C-4AEE-8361-A7DB74FB156B--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?22C5E027-82CE-4872-8C7E-9A1FB7384F24>