From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 28 15:54:27 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 381D1106566B for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:54:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scheidell@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mx1.secnap.com.ionspam.net (mx1.secnap.com.ionspam.net [204.89.241.253]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD2188FC16 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:54:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.secnap.com.ionspam.net (mx1.secnap.com.ionspam.net [10.70.1.253]) by mx1.secnap.com.ionspam.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57325621C3A; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 11:54:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: SpammerTrap(r) VPS-1500 2.18 at mx1.secnap.com.ionspam.net Received: from USBCTDC001.secnap.com (usbctdc001.secnap.com [10.70.1.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.secnap.com.ionspam.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACFBB621C29; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 11:54:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MikeBook-Air.local (10.80.0.4) by USBCTDC001.secnap.com (10.70.1.1) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.0.722.0; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 11:54:25 -0400 Message-ID: <4F733432.4020902@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 11:54:26 -0400 From: Michael Scheidell Organization: SECNAP Network Security Corp User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.2.20) Gecko/20110804 Thunderbird/3.1.12 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris Rees References: <4F732C89.3040804@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FAQ on PORTREVISION bump? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:54:27 -0000 On 3/28/12 11:39 AM, Chris Rees wrote: > You also need to consider that packages are rebuilt on a bump, so if > the RUN_DEPEND removal were a real monster, the pkg_add -r users will > thank you for that. Im guessing perl would qualify for that :-).. needs perl to build, but not run. python, bison, things like that, right? -- Michael Scheidell, CTO >*| * SECNAP Network Security Corporation d: +1.561.948.2259 w: http://people.freebsd.org/~scheidell