Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:40:41 +0100 From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> To: Michael Gmelin <grembo@freebsd.org> Cc: "svn-ports-head@freebsd.org" <svn-ports-head@freebsd.org>, "svn-ports-all@freebsd.org" <svn-ports-all@freebsd.org>, "marino@freebsd.org" <marino@freebsd.org>, "jwbacon@tds.net" <jwbacon@tds.net>, "ports-committers@freebsd.org" <ports-committers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r370220 - in head/biology: . ncbi-blast Message-ID: <86oaqle7yu.fsf@nine.des.no> In-Reply-To: <0E188BDF-EBCD-4849-B329-C7109A52BD33@freebsd.org> (Michael Gmelin's message of "Sun, 28 Dec 2014 21:08:01 %2B0100") References: <201410062016.s96KGZP8084850@svn.freebsd.org> <86r3vjg054.fsf@nine.des.no> <54A04955.3010601@marino.st> <86387zfur3.fsf@nine.des.no> <54A05AB7.3020200@marino.st> <86sifzef1i.fsf@nine.des.no> <54A05E8E.20802@marino.st> <0E188BDF-EBCD-4849-B329-C7109A52BD33@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michael Gmelin <grembo@freebsd.org> writes: > I don't really follow the argument of bumping portepoch (it's not a > very explicit way of stating that this is not the original version - > IMHO it's actually not what portepoch is about). I never asked anyone to bump PORTEPOCH. I merely pointed out that if the ncbi-blast name were to be used for BLAST, PORTEPOCH would have to be bumped due to PORTVERSION regressing from 2.2.30 to 2.2.26. 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?86oaqle7yu.fsf>