Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 22 Oct 2016 11:55:26 +0000
From:      bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To:        freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   [Bug 210168] math/gsl: Update to 2.2.1
Message-ID:  <bug-210168-13-wrMQRl4S4l@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-210168-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References:  <bug-210168-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D210168

Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD. |adamw@FreeBSD.org
                   |org                         |
             Status|New                         |Open
            Summary|[patch] math/gsl: update to |math/gsl: Update to 2.2.1
                   |2.2.1                       |

--- Comment #15 from Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> ---
Reporter is committer, assign accordingly.

I see 46 dependents, is an exp-run worthwhile so that potential fallout can=
 be
seen (at least at build time), prior to updating the main port to 2.x?

+ 1 on a gsl1 port (if gsl is to move across the major version barrier), OR=
 a
new gsl2 port for 2.x versions.

I would add that in addition to this, a sweeping change pointing all depend=
ents
to the 1.x port is better than switching them implicitly/automatically to 2=
.x.
This allows those port maintainers to switch to the 2.x port at their leisu=
re
(and having QA'd it them individually).

I did this with the www/py-requests 1.x -> 2.x transition which worked well.

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.=



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-210168-13-wrMQRl4S4l>