Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 14 Jul 2020 20:31:05 +0200
From:      =?UTF-8?B?VMSzbA==?= Coosemans <tijl@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org>, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org>
Cc:        ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r542221 - in head/www: flashplayer linux-flashplayer
Message-ID:  <20200714203105.2d2655e3@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <534110e7-b68b-102c-76fa-c2ab351851c2@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <202007141515.06EFFN7x098890@repo.freebsd.org> <20200714153818.GA19650@FreeBSD.org> <534110e7-b68b-102c-76fa-c2ab351851c2@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 11:47:38 -0400 Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> On 20. 7. 14., Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 03:15:23PM +0000, Jung-uk Kim wrote:  
>>> New Revision: 542221
>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/542221
>>>
>>> Log:
>>>   Update to 32.0.0.403.
>>>
>>> Modified:
>>>   head/www/flashplayer/Makefile
>>>   head/www/linux-flashplayer/Makefile
>>>   head/www/linux-flashplayer/distinfo
>>>
>>> ...
>>> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
>>>  
>>>  PORTNAME=	flashplayer
>>>  PORTVERSION=	32.0
>>> -PORTREVISION=	18
>>> +PORTREVISION=	19  
>> 
>> Is there a reason to abuse PORTREVISION instead of PORTVERSION=32.0.0.387
>> like in the other port?  I didn't search the history, but if there is,
>> perhaps it deserves a comment in the Makefile.  
> 
> No reason.  Actually, I don't like it myself but I didn't bother because
> it will be removed at the end of this year.
> 
> https://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/end-of-life.html

When I created this port I thought it wouldn't have to be rebuilt for
every minor release.  Isn't the wrapper library for two minor releases
identical?



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200714203105.2d2655e3>