Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:50:54 +0100 From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> To: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> Cc: FreeBSD ports <ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: ports/58588: port dns/bind9: PORTEPOCH must be increased Message-ID: <3F9E743E.1050206@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <20031028031035.P66902@qbhto.arg> References: <200310272118.h9RLIOmJ076007@freefall.freebsd.org> <3F9DA174.6050000@fillmore-labs.com> <20031028031035.P66902@qbhto.arg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Doug Barton wrote: > I specifically stated that I did not want to bump portepoch for this port. > > I realize that my error in version numbering previously caused some confusion > about 9.2.3 being a more up to date version than 9.2.3.4, but this will quickly > be resolved with the next version, ... 9.2.1: 8/01 2002 9.2.2: 3/04 2003 9.2.3: 10/24 2003 The average release cycle is ~ 5 Months, I don't consider this to be `quickly'. > ... and affected only a few users who installed the release candidate. That means everybody who upgraded bind9 between 9/24 and 10/24. And I assume lots of people did, to get the new delegation-only option to evade Verisign's sitefinder, see for example the thread on freebsd-hackers@: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2003-September/thread.html#3177 > The portepoch change is permanent, and perpetuates a silly kludge for no good > reason. The good reason is that people will get the upgrade. Hell, there are a lot of silly kludges in the FreeBSD port tree, and I welcome every proposal that point out a better solution. > Please do not change this again without discussing it with me. Ok, here we go.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F9E743E.1050206>