Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:05:27 -0800 (PST) From: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> To: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/emulators/rtc Makefileports/emulators/rtc/files rtc.c Message-ID: <20040310140322.U875@bo.vpnaa.bet> In-Reply-To: <20040310033538.S9942@odysseus.silby.com> References: <200403100902.i2A922vx092031@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040310033538.S9942@odysseus.silby.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Mike Silbersack wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> > > *Actually* make rtc work on post-502104 -CURRENT.
> >
> > Is a PORTREVISION bump needed?
> >
> > Kris
>
> It couldn't hurt, thanks for the reminder.
I know I harp on this a lot, but I'm curious about this one. Why is a
portrevision bump useful here? I see two possibilities:
1. A user has a working version of the port.
2. A user did not have a working version of the port, therefore it
wasn't installed.
In the first case the bump is harmful, since it causes the user to
upgrade something for no benefit. In the second case, the bump is
meaningless.
Is there a part of this picture that I'm not seeing?
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040310140322.U875>