From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 1 23:59:28 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 004C416A420 for ; Sat, 1 Oct 2005 23:59:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mail2.fluidhosting.com [204.14.90.62]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 11AA543D53 for ; Sat, 1 Oct 2005 23:59:26 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 78822 invoked by uid 399); 1 Oct 2005 23:59:25 -0000 Received: from mail1.fluidhosting.com (204.14.90.61) by mail2.fluidhosting.com with SMTP; 1 Oct 2005 23:59:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 23939 invoked by uid 399); 1 Oct 2005 23:59:25 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.1.102?) (dougb@dougbarton.net@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 1 Oct 2005 23:59:25 -0000 Message-ID: <433F22DB.5030406@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 16:59:23 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20050929) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ion-Mihai Tetcu References: <200509281902.j8SJ2Fbf043957@repoman.freebsd.org> <0E80A2630461552641F1C3F8@cc-126-240.int.t-online.fr> <1128175185.5849.4.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> <20051001230330.3d2e3aa1@it.buh.tecnik93.com> In-Reply-To: <20051001230330.3d2e3aa1@it.buh.tecnik93.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.92.1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Mathieu Arnold , cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org, pav@FreeBSD.org, Marcus Alves Grando , cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/mail/postfix distinfo X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 23:59:28 -0000 Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote: > What's the logic in this ? I should read each commit log for all the > ports if I don't use the defaults ? The other side of that is, why should people who have the port installed and working how they want it have to recompile (or reinstall) to get absolutely zero benefit? A balance has to be struck somewhere, I am enthusiastically in favor of being conservative with PORTREVISION bumps. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection