Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:34:12 -0800 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: ports-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/ports-mgmt/portmaster/files portmaster.sh.in Message-ID: <479A71F4.2060106@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20080125215714.GA78140@tirith.brixandersen.dk> References: <200801240236.m0O2awrw054388@repoman.freebsd.org> <20080124181741.GA37539@tirith.brixandersen.dk> <4798F0E3.1030401@FreeBSD.org> <20080124202623.GA46809@tirith.brixandersen.dk> <47993265.2030603@FreeBSD.org> <20080125215714.GA78140@tirith.brixandersen.dk>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> 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?
Why do you care?
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?479A71F4.2060106>