Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:51:57 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, Wesley Shields <wxs@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/net-im/libpurple Makefile Message-ID: <49C955FD.5090005@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20090324214643.GA22603@FreeBSD.org> References: <200903240023.n2O0NVBb013624@repoman.freebsd.org> <49C84088.9020505@FreeBSD.org> <20090324021518.GC1292@atarininja.org> <49C84339.60201@FreeBSD.org> <20090324104032.GA47617@FreeBSD.org> <49C952AE.8080509@FreeBSD.org> <20090324214643.GA22603@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: >> This is one of the main reasons I'd like to propose a replacement for >> PORTREVISION/PORTEPOCH that can more easily be set within an optional >> part of the Makefile. > > While having certain deficiencies, PORTREVISION/PORTEPOCH had worked > pretty well for a long time, yet being simple enough to not get in the > way. Will your alternative give more than it will take from settled way > of doing things? I already posted briefly on the bash thread about my idea, but the answer to your question is yes. I'm not proposing taking anything away, but I am proposing something that will eliminate the need for users to needlessly recompile ports that are already up to date for them based on the options they actually HAVE chosen. Doug
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49C955FD.5090005>