Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 15:51:06 -0400 From: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org> To: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r319792 - head/sysutils/fsc Message-ID: <20130603155106.7f3e5826.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <51ACDC95.4060600@FreeBSD.org> References: <201306031632.r53GWPdP069628@svn.freebsd.org> <51ACC994.4060608@FreeBSD.org> <20130603133012.114c2ae7.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> <51ACDC95.4060600@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 13:12:37 -0500 Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > On 6/3/2013 12:30 PM, Tom Rhodes wrote: > > On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 11:51:32 -0500 > > Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > > >> This is bad form. If you are changing upstream code it should be a new > >> release version, not a reroll. We frequently have problems with other > >> upstreams doing this and should follow our own guidelines. > > > > I'm not bumping the version used for a simple gcc->clang warning > > fix. That's why I just bumped PORTVERSION. If we want to do a > > new version, I'll get ahold of the NetBSD people, who also work > > with keeping a port, and discuss doing that. In this case, it > > was a simple fix rather than adding a 2 line patch to a files/ > > directory. > > > > The proper way to do is this a new release, or a patch in files with a > PORTREVISION, or a sed in post-patch. This is the convention. Rerolling > upstream is a big no no. Rerolling is obscure and very frowned upon. > This also impacts NetBSD if they are tracking checksums, and any other > projects depending on the checksum of the upstream tarball. I'll look at bumping the release version - there are some other changes that need made anyway, I just wanted to fix the build so users could build it again. > > If you had a ports committer approve/review this change, which you > should have and should do in the future, this would have been avoided. I am a ports committer, sorry I forgot about this - considering I commit to this area rarely. So you can remind me about the rule, link to relevant documention, and I will remember for the future or "fix" the issue. No attitude needed. > > > > >> > >> On 6/3/2013 11:32 AM, Tom Rhodes wrote: > >>> Author: trhodes (src,doc committer) > >>> Date: Mon Jun 3 16:32:24 2013 > >>> New Revision: 319792 > >>> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/319792 > >>> > >>> Log: > >>> Update to fix breakage with clang. > >>> > >>> PR: 179050 > >>> Requested by: many > >>> > >>> Modified: > >>> head/sysutils/fsc/Makefile > >>> head/sysutils/fsc/distinfo > >>> > >>> Modified: head/sysutils/fsc/Makefile > >>> ============================================================================== > >>> --- head/sysutils/fsc/Makefile Mon Jun 3 16:02:16 2013 (r319791) > >>> +++ head/sysutils/fsc/Makefile Mon Jun 3 16:32:24 2013 (r319792) > >>> @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ > >>> > >>> PORTNAME= fsc > >>> PORTVERSION= 1.0.1 > >>> -PORTREVISION= 1 > >>> +PORTREVISION= 2 > >>> CATEGORIES= sysutils > >>> MASTER_SITES= LOCAL > >>> MASTER_SITE_SUBDIR= trhodes > >>> > >>> Modified: head/sysutils/fsc/distinfo > >>> ============================================================================== > >>> --- head/sysutils/fsc/distinfo Mon Jun 3 16:02:16 2013 (r319791) > >>> +++ head/sysutils/fsc/distinfo Mon Jun 3 16:32:24 2013 (r319792) > >>> @@ -1,2 +1,2 @@ > >>> -SHA256 (fsc-1.0.1.tar.gz) = 3cae8021534dfc7074173ceca0ffd1483c2f58badb28663d6a99bcbf754e1f0a > >>> -SIZE (fsc-1.0.1.tar.gz) = 11708 > >>> +SHA256 (fsc-1.0.1.tar.gz) = 41979af3f5ed2fd37e30839cacc22408ac65f2fd20df30de1e5114bc0d2e733b > >>> +SIZE (fsc-1.0.1.tar.gz) = 12435 > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Regards, > >> Bryan Drewery > >> > >> > > > -- > Regards, > Bryan Drewery > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130603155106.7f3e5826.trhodes>