Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 09:10:30 +0000 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: Andrey Chernov <ache@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, Sunpoet Po-Chuan Hsieh <sunpoet@freebsd.org>, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r311414 - head/www/pecl-APC Message-ID: <CADLo839Gdm3fb=egjPq5TtkaF0CaQOQVdRPKqHowM=nEjKNF3Q@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <510CAA71.3030906@freebsd.org> References: <201302020346.r123kLer085367@svn.freebsd.org> <CAF6rxgki3y0NkOd19zYuEUv6P%2BPfPdSCApH1OxOa=XO18GeuLA@mail.gmail.com> <510CAA71.3030906@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2 Feb 2013 05:56, "Andrey Chernov" <ache@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On 02.02.2013 8:47, Eitan Adler wrote:> IMHO this keeping of the wrong > version number is confusing and wrong. > > It makes it more difficult to determine which upstream version is > > being referenced. Further, for a user that knows that .14 was > > withdrawn it makes this port seems bogus. > > > > In this case nothing is wrong with PORTEPOCH and we should not have an > > allergy to it. > > > > > > I agree. Bumping PORTEPOCH is the right way. There is no 3.1.14 on > http://pecl.php.net/package/APC and people may have impression that it > is fake local version. > > Moreover you can't avoid PORTEPOCH bumping in any case when fixed 3.1.14 > will be re-issued. A PORTREVISION bump will be sufficient there. I won't comment on the epoch preserving, other than to approve in an OCD sense :) Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo839Gdm3fb=egjPq5TtkaF0CaQOQVdRPKqHowM=nEjKNF3Q>