Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 21:41:57 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: autoconf update Message-ID: <4C92F195.5000605@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4C92C14D.3010005@FreeBSD.org> References: <4C91446F.3090202@bsdforen.de> <20100916171744.GA48415@hades.panopticon> <4C927ED0.5050307@bsdforen.de> <86zkvhfhaa.fsf@gmail.com> <4C92C14D.3010005@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/16/2010 6:15 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > On 9/16/2010 3:35 PM, Anonymous wrote: >> Dominic Fandrey<kamikaze@bsdforen.de> writes: >> >>> On 16/09/2010 19:17, Dmitry Marakasov wrote: >>>> * Dominic Fandrey (kamikaze@bsdforen.de) wrote: >>>> >>>>> Just out of curiosity, why a version bump because of a build >>>>> dependency? >>>>> >>>>> I don't think an autoconf update should have an effect on any >>>>> /running/ software but build systems. And I don't see how rebuilding >>>>> all the software improves it. >>>>> >>>>> This is not a criticism - I just think there is something I don't >>>>> understand and that worries me. >> >> My guess is to uncover *early* build failures that exp-run didn't catch. > > We shouldn't use our users to beta-test infrastructure changes. Sorry, I'm not feeling well atm and realize that I didn't write what I was thinking here. What I intended to say was that we _don't_ intentionally use the ports system to force our users to beta test changes. I think it goes without saying that we _shouldn't_ do this, although I think that changes like this are a platinum-coated example of why we need to have -stable and -dev branches for ports. Doug -- ... and that's just a little bit of history repeating. -- Propellerheads Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C92F195.5000605>