From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri May 25 03:36:37 2012
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFE7E1065678
	for <cvs-ports@freebsd.org>; Fri, 25 May 2012 03:36:37 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from lists@eitanadler.com)
Received: from mail-we0-f182.google.com (mail-we0-f182.google.com
	[74.125.82.182])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F75F8FC15
	for <cvs-ports@freebsd.org>; Fri, 25 May 2012 03:36:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by werg1 with SMTP id g1so381706wer.13
	for <cvs-ports@freebsd.org>; Thu, 24 May 2012 20:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=eitanadler.com; s=0xdeadbeef;
	h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date
	:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type;
	bh=ebEOuVS2IZXVfCaZShmSvAmpUF+H2WHiV36SkQLVQp4=;
	b=a6HzA3zZ27KKQhLzepKadWrM0lBZ2mdb+c9398MHFk3UZy7I1t2HyCywbKhKSE+Dz6
	/5zoFQk6IHHECOxzgty+MM+0JGmYm9rTzYeCHWN1DgSWBDT7nlbV9CFwy4PABplOZPSL
	umBIJlYrPUaWWcmmqMlY9OZYRExes4Sa2Ed40=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=google.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date
	:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type
	:x-gm-message-state;
	bh=ebEOuVS2IZXVfCaZShmSvAmpUF+H2WHiV36SkQLVQp4=;
	b=oDw/TipURFUDazazv2FPuTTPiJaVTsQ43nigB/orphasaluKdWxwMpTj5HnKKX6bjx
	osxcaOMd2+JOcR96+yPoiu/bZKjd4lP+otu/G24Zu08QuHlrsva0enm5UGwcnGvFWoyo
	wNIWO91VInTnEQmURVAjtvuR2AoxTzjLGhYOKi1QuqyhpwcjZeaPbhGDI+gtonjzW9QN
	+ke2Ic4Loc5TxZ0/dUsJexxYTwBabP7MSHLlGVsB0i21/5ieS3KZ9X3L/dfQY1PiTs3B
	o5km2aNUQaIxJGIvHN0C89ce4+U/67WdLyDOICnlMYTCwXjGOAQ7AE9ma54AhDaygc95
	DWZA==
Received: by 10.216.131.150 with SMTP id m22mr853176wei.111.1337916996115;
	Thu, 24 May 2012 20:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: lists@eitanadler.com
Received: by 10.223.85.202 with HTTP; Thu, 24 May 2012 20:36:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOfEmZjGrbCiMDFuRt-wFk03HPmpvsDvm9Jn1uA14paQ_1vzqQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201205210632.q4L6WPI9081702@repoman.freebsd.org>
	<20120521143623.34087c13.miwi@FreeBSD.org>
	<4FB9E411.9030500@FreeBSD.org>
	<20120521070444.GG63744@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
	<CAOfEmZgqf_F-FuYE2t_5bhjcQB-roGYO8LCuX6yynh_oieBtww@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF6rxgkvwf5MGLsTVfksO-vQoc4OK9x094SDUHXWkDWoedCO_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOfEmZjV3d4O2LTsJTLM9kh97QcRGx9RokEDz-YGxb5wSz6Pdg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF6rxgkJ4McR=2ESxeGc3m03q8iAoJfAMhRyR4v3hjL4HzWdfg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOfEmZj5sQJtCk6xqdQuSjejN453MDqws-Wn-gnMSk1=7HR8RA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF6rxgk=vC0sqU6Lk=nSM_FSc38txiq3=nWb9EVp6YFy1Vk1VQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOfEmZjGrbCiMDFuRt-wFk03HPmpvsDvm9Jn1uA14paQ_1vzqQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 20:36:05 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: BPwtBp0vZ_C2ZPigWWeYiuCVWfU
Message-ID: <CAF6rxgmvOGkdNDvwFREywFF1aAC_xQNm4qB_DbELAqnotZPJog@mail.gmail.com>
To: araujo@freebsd.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlp2q45QHCYVLDyVucSZbNeTTppIj3RdaSynAewlxS5/JfgJQVD+zHlAdTBmpyf/5aRMdwX
Cc: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, miwi@freebsd.org,
	cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org,
	Dmitry Sivachenko <demon@freebsd.org>, cvs-ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/net/haproxy Makefile distinfo
X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree <cvs-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ports>,
	<mailto:cvs-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ports>,
	<mailto:cvs-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 03:36:37 -0000

On 24 May 2012 20:32, Marcelo Araujo <araujobsdport@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, we are talking specifically in the case of haproxy. It doesn't break
> anything right, does it?
> So, I do believe there is no problem with that commit.

Agreed. I was just giving a rationale for why approval is still required ;)

-- 
Eitan Adler
Source & Ports committer
X11, Bugbusting teams