Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 22:56:18 +0100 From: Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org> To: Marcus von Appen <mva@FreeBSD.org>, Ruslan Makhmatkhanov <cvs-src@yandex.ru> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r340925 - head/devel/py-singledispatch Message-ID: <D3502F41BCE8479802C25FA8@atuin.in.mat.cc> In-Reply-To: <20140124203226.GA1396@medusa.sysfault.org> References: <201401241906.s0OJ64Gf078576@svn.freebsd.org> <52E2C6DE.6030900@yandex.ru> <20140124203226.GA1396@medusa.sysfault.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
+--On 24 janvier 2014 21:32:26 +0100 Marcus von Appen <mva@FreeBSD.org> wrote: |> > USE_PYTHON= yes |> > -USE_PYDISTUTILS= easy_install |> > +USE_PYDISTUTILS= yes |> > PYDISTUTILS_AUTOPLIST= yes |> > |> > .include <bsd.port.mk> |> |> Marcus, shouldn't changes like that follow PORTREVISION bump or I |> misunderstand something? | | The package contents change, but it does not have any influence on | dependent ports nor on functionality nor on requirements. Thus | I do not see it as necessary to bump the port revision. | | I'm fine however with bumping PORTREVISION, if that's the desired | approach of dealing with that. It *is* the desired approach, the rule is simple, if the package can changes, whatever option or knob being used, PORTREVISION is to be bumped. -- Mathieu Arnold
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D3502F41BCE8479802C25FA8>