Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 08:50:38 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Cc: ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/devel/libvanessa_adt Makefile pkg-plist ports/devel/libvanessa_adt/files patch-ltmain.sh Message-ID: <20040324165038.GB3323@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <40608C18.60103@dougbarton.net> References: <200403231608.i2NG8XmM046696@repoman.freebsd.org> <40608C18.60103@dougbarton.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 11:12:24AM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: > Clement Laforet wrote: > > clement 2004/03/23 08:08:33 PST > > FreeBSD ports repository > > Modified files: > > devel/libvanessa_adt Makefile pkg-plist > > Added files: > > devel/libvanessa_adt/files patch-ltmain.sh > > Log: > > - kill .la files > > - bump PORTREVISION ... > I object to both of the stated purposes for this commit. First, it's > been discussed to death that 1. .la files sometimes serve a useful > purpose, and 2. deleting them does not serve a useful purpose. Second, > if a user has the port installed already, a bumped PORTREVISION would > suggest to them that there is some benefit in deleting the existing port > and reinstalling. Here that is clearly not the case. Agreed WRT bumping PORTREVISION. Why does it seem almost all ports committers today think PORTREVISION must be bumped with ever single commit?? This does nothing but cause unnecessary great churn when using pkg_version and portupgrade.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040324165038.GB3323>