Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 19:14:41 +0200 From: Peter Pentchev <roam@orbitel.bg> To: Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG, obrien@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports/23732: [PATCH] devel/cs has unfetchable distfile Message-ID: <20001222191441.G1654@ringworld.oblivion.bg> In-Reply-To: <20001222120707.N328@argon.firepipe.net>; from will@physics.purdue.edu on Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 12:07:07PM -0500 References: <200012221029.eBMATxc45696@freefall.freebsd.org> <20001222120707.N328@argon.firepipe.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 12:07:07PM -0500, Will Andrews wrote: > On Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 02:29:59AM -0800, roam@FreeBSD.ORG wrote: > > This patch has whitespace issues, too, but there's something more - > > a changed MD5 checksum. I diff'd the distfiles, and there's new > > functionality added, without a version bump (don't we all love those..) > > I wonder if this could be cause for an upped PORTVERSION - it seems > > PORTREVISION should not be used for such authors' slip-ups.. > > No. We use PORTREVISION for this kind of thing. Well, that was my original understanding, and that's how I used it in e.g. mail/fetchmail :) However, I've seen a comment or two that PORTREVISION should be reserved for FreeBSD security-related fixes, and now I'm not so sure. So, you are saying my original impression was correct, and PORTREVISION is the version-bump tool to use for rerolled tarballs? G'luck, Peter -- If I had finished this sentence, To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001222191441.G1654>