Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 19:11:45 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: G?bor K?vesd?n <gabor@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, pav@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/security/lsh Makefile ports/security/lsh/files patch-nettle-openssl.c Message-ID: <20060812231145.GA64930@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <44DE5079.8010807@FreeBSD.org> References: <200608122126.k7CLQ7qN091943@repoman.freebsd.org> <44DE4C6F.4040707@FreeBSD.org> <1155419695.12089.0.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> <44DE5079.8010807@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 12:04:41AM +0200, G?bor K?vesd?n wrote: > Pav Lucistnik wrote: > >G?bor K?vesd?n p??e v so 12. 08. 2006 v 23:47 +0200: > > > >>Pav Lucistnik wrote: > >> > >>>pav 2006-08-12 21:26:07 UTC > >>> > >>> FreeBSD ports repository > >>> > >>> Modified files: > >>> security/lsh Makefile > >>> Added files: > >>> security/lsh/files patch-nettle-openssl.c > >>> Log: > >>> - Fix build on 4.X > >>> - Respect CC and CFLAGS > >>> > >>> PR: ports/101750 > >>> Submitted by: Babak Farrokhi <babak@farrokhi.net> (maintainer) > >>> > >>> Revision Changes Path > >>> 1.35 +2 -0 ports/security/lsh/Makefile > >>> 1.1 +10 -0 ports/security/lsh/files/patch-nettle-openssl.c > >>> (new) > >>> > > > > > >>I think it also needs a PORTREVISION bump if you make a port respect CC > >>since such change affects the build phase of the port. > >> > > > >Imagine you are user with already installed lsh; do you want to > >recompile just because of this change? > > > Yes, because I like optimized binaries. :) > >Imagine you are user who downloads the package from the ftp site. > >Do you mind you don't have this change? > > > > > No, of course not, but there are other cases when a user might not want > to do so, but they are require a PORTREVISION bump, e.g. adding > something specific thing to OPTIONS. If the give user doesn't use the > new functionality, (s)he will get the same, but portupgrade will notice > the bump at all. Pav is correct that such a minor change does not warrant forcing all users to upgrade. Kris [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFE3mAxWry0BWjoQKURAjG0AJ9KH3eiExRP8FpO/BRDOwyGp7Z7fgCfeePH d91RJCt8+LKTeC1NCprSylE= =kleB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060812231145.GA64930>