From owner-svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Mon Jan 27 06:40:11 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0AD2233C84; Mon, 27 Jan 2020 06:40:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jbeich@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [96.47.72.132]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "freefall.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 485g974g4Xz41cS; Mon, 27 Jan 2020 06:40:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jbeich@freebsd.org) Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1354) id 969521B9F5; Mon, 27 Jan 2020 06:40:11 +0000 (UTC) From: Jan Beich To: "Tobias C. Berner" Cc: Alexey Dokuchaev , ports-committers , svn-ports-all , svn-ports-head , gecko@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r524241 - head/databases/sqlite3 References: <202001270533.00R5XDkT049821@repo.freebsd.org> <20200127062504.GA47080@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 07:40:14 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Tobias C. Berner's message of "Mon, 27 Jan 2020 07:30:20 +0100") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 06:40:11 -0000 "Tobias C. Berner" writes: > On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 07:25, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > >> >> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 07:19:00AM +0100, Tobias C. Berner wrote: >> > There is talk upstream of no longer supporting system sqlite in the >> > future. >> >> But that goes against encouraged practices (to avoid bundled libraries), >> what's their rationale for going the wrong way? > Situations like these. > >> >> > So this might be the best way forward. >> > >> > What's gecko@'s opinion on this? Needs to be tested. >> >> It would be nice if this matter was sorted out *before* bumping of the >> port epoch. :-( > We had a broken firefox, this required fixing. Adding epoch was the fastest way. For 1 day on /head branch. Even /latest binary packages weren't affected yet.