Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 16 Jul 2011 19:35:51 -0500
From:      Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>
To:        Chris Rees <crees@freebsd.org>
Cc:        ports@freebsd.org, perl@freebsd.org, dougb@freebsd.org, skv@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: RFC: change to bsd.perl.mk
Message-ID:  <20110717003551.GA17969@lonesome.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADLo839j3akUhvVrr2Mb0gvCDNDL7U-pgbFx4WQzX9-4xW6DYw@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <20110716212640.GA13201@lonesome.com> <CADLo839-NeBEcYwcGN%2BabuFxbUk%2BzFwBQ7dUNymh4_BFNkS-Nw@mail.gmail.com> <CADLo839j3akUhvVrr2Mb0gvCDNDL7U-pgbFx4WQzX9-4xW6DYw@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:51:04PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote:
> If it's unconditionally included, how does that exempt it from exp-runs?
> 
> Surely it's equally risky to commit to it as bsd.port.mk, or have I missed
> something?

In a perfect world we'd have -exp runs for everything, I suppose.  OTOH
here in the real world there's plenty of lower-risk changes that can be
done without.  If in doubt, we can always do one.

Take a look a the various commits in ports/Mk for examples of what's
been done in the past.

mcl



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110717003551.GA17969>