Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 22:57:14 +0100 From: Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/ports-mgmt/portmaster/files portmaster.sh.in Message-ID: <20080125215714.GA78140@tirith.brixandersen.dk> In-Reply-To: <47993265.2030603@FreeBSD.org> References: <200801240236.m0O2awrw054388@repoman.freebsd.org> <20080124181741.GA37539@tirith.brixandersen.dk> <4798F0E3.1030401@FreeBSD.org> <20080124202623.GA46809@tirith.brixandersen.dk> <47993265.2030603@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 04:50:45PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: > Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: > >> Yeah, looks a bit odd - I wonder why the revision number of that file >> was suddently bumped from 1.28 to 2.0 by CVS... > > There is no mystery. :) I bumped the version on all the files in the port > to match the new version 2.0 for portmaster itself. See the commit log for > more information on why. That's not exactly "standard procedure", is it? I mean, no other ports have a direct relation between their version and the revision of their Makefile in FreeBSD ports? Why would this be needed for portmaster? I couldn't seem to find any explanation in your commit log? Brix -- Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@FreeBSD.org> [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (FreeBSD) Comment: GnuPG signed iEYEARECAAYFAkeaWzkACgkQv+Q4flTiePin8wCgwV5ZLLQK2wtxMD7TYldj6bLo tIsAn2LzbTBN5nVrgXOqsRGuCxT5IfBa =k3hw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080125215714.GA78140>