From owner-svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Wed Apr 13 07:22:44 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 389BCB0EF57; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 07:22:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pi@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fc.opsec.eu (fc.opsec.eu [IPv6:2001:14f8:200:4::4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECC941E19; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 07:22:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pi@FreeBSD.org) Received: from pi by fc.opsec.eu with local (Exim 4.86_2 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1aqF8L-000EVm-At; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:22:41 +0200 Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:22:41 +0200 From: Kurt Jaeger To: Philippe Aud?oud Cc: Kurt Jaeger , 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: <20160413072241.GO991@fc.opsec.eu> References: <201604121855.u3CItgBM003451@repo.freebsd.org> <20160413064022.GA88870@tuxaco.net> <20160413064242.GN991@fc.opsec.eu> <20160413070736.GB88870@tuxaco.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160413070736.GB88870@tuxaco.net> 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 07:22:44 -0000 Hi! > > > Is there any interest to commit a change like this: > > > > > > "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? > > > > 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. Ups, you're right! I thought I've seen it at 1.72 8-( -- pi@FreeBSD.org +49 171 3101372 4 years to go !