Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 16:01:04 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 204494] [PATCH] sysutils/mdf2iso: mark UN'BROKEN (fetchable) Message-ID: <bug-204494-13-HmhkqmXWF8@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-204494-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-204494-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204494 --- Comment #5 from Chris Hutchinson <portmaster@bsdforge.com> --- (In reply to Kubilay Kocak from comment #4) > @Matthew / @Chris, thank you both for submitting changes to rescue this > port. Can you organise/decide among yourselves which patch should be > committed. > > Since this port has no maintainer, both changes 'technically' have implicit > approval, so I'm going to reset the flag until you've both decided and > provide instructions. > > 1) Whichever way we go, we should have redundant MASTER_SITES and a > 'non-fork' situation. Where did version 3.1 come from? > > 2) Regarding the merge (MFH) to quarterly, a separate changeset should be > attached just for the fix (if it applied to the latest quarterly), as > version updates don't go there (which I'm still unsure about) @Kubilay The only change to the source, was to indicate it has a new [working] home, and provides for further development. Nothing in source was changed to affect the functionality of the application itself. This was what I attributed the necessity to bump the PORTVERSION. Thanks for the reply! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-204494-13-HmhkqmXWF8>