From owner-svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Wed Apr 13 07:07:37 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E758EB0E185; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 07:07:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jadawin@huppa.tuxaco.net) Received: from huppa.tuxaco.net (tuxaco.net [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:66c1::1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3CBC1120; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 07:07:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jadawin@huppa.tuxaco.net) Received: by huppa.tuxaco.net (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 4BE8B2282D; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:07:36 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:07:36 +0200 From: Philippe Aud?oud To: Kurt Jaeger Cc: Adam Weinberger , ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r413155 - head/security/p5-Net-SSLeay Message-ID: <20160413070736.GB88870@tuxaco.net> References: <201604121855.u3CItgBM003451@repo.freebsd.org> <20160413064022.GA88870@tuxaco.net> <20160413064242.GN991@fc.opsec.eu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: <20160413064242.GN991@fc.opsec.eu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 07:07:38 -0000 On Wed, 13 Apr 2016, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > Hi! >=20 > > Is there any interest to commit a change like this: > >=20 > > "1.74 2016-04-12 > > README.OSX was missing from the distribution" ? > > I saw this update in portscout and i told myself it was not impacted > > FreeBSD so I didn't update it. Do we have to blindly commit to follow > > upstream revision or can we jump some version because they are not > > impacted FreeBSD? >=20 > In this case, 1.72 was in the tree and 1.73 had some relevant change > (some additional API). So one might as well update to 1.74... > It was an update to 1.73 to 1.74 in our case. --=20 Philippe Aud=E9oud=20