From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Aug 12 23:11:46 2006 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 E8DAD16A4DE; Sat, 12 Aug 2006 23:11:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EE4143D46; Sat, 12 Aug 2006 23:11:46 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F2731A4E9B; Sat, 12 Aug 2006 16:11:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9B770515DC; Sat, 12 Aug 2006 19:11:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 19:11:45 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway To: G?bor K?vesd?n Message-ID: <20060812231145.GA64930@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <200608122126.k7CLQ7qN091943@repoman.freebsd.org> <44DE4C6F.4040707@FreeBSD.org> <1155419695.12089.0.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> <44DE5079.8010807@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <44DE5079.8010807@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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 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, 12 Aug 2006 23:11:47 -0000 --YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: > > =20 > >>Pav Lucistnik wrote: > >> =20 > >>>pav 2006-08-12 21:26:07 UTC > >>> > >>> FreeBSD ports repository > >>> > >>> Modified files: > >>> security/lsh Makefile=20 > >>> Added files: > >>> security/lsh/files patch-nettle-openssl.c=20 > >>> Log: > >>> - Fix build on 4.X > >>> - Respect CC and CFLAGS > >>> =20 > >>> PR: ports/101750 > >>> Submitted by: Babak Farrokhi (maintainer) > >>> =20 > >>> Revision Changes Path > >>> 1.35 +2 -0 ports/security/lsh/Makefile > >>> 1.1 +10 -0 ports/security/lsh/files/patch-nettle-openssl.c= =20 > >>> (new) > >>> =20 > > > > =20 > >>I think it also needs a PORTREVISION bump if you make a port respect CC= =20 > >>since such change affects the build phase of the port. > >> =20 > > > >Imagine you are user with already installed lsh; do you want to > >recompile just because of this change? > > =20 > 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? > > > > =20 > No, of course not, but there are other cases when a user might not want= =20 > to do so, but they are require a PORTREVISION bump, e.g. adding=20 > something specific thing to OPTIONS. If the give user doesn't use the=20 > new functionality, (s)he will get the same, but portupgrade will notice= =20 > the bump at all. Pav is correct that such a minor change does not warrant forcing all users to upgrade. Kris --YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFE3mAxWry0BWjoQKURAjG0AJ9KH3eiExRP8FpO/BRDOwyGp7Z7fgCfeePH d91RJCt8+LKTeC1NCprSylE= =kleB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK--