Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 10:53:51 -0500 From: "David W. Chapman Jr." <dwcjr@inethouston.net> To: "David W. Chapman Jr." <dwcjr@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/mail/mutt-devel Makefile pkg-plist Message-ID: <20010903105351.A56566@leviathan.inethouston.net> In-Reply-To: <20010903110628.G72833@ringworld.oblivion.bg> References: <200109030549.f835nDa75558@freefall.freebsd.org> <20010903110628.G72833@ringworld.oblivion.bg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 11:06:28AM +0300, Peter Pentchev wrote: > On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 10:49:13PM -0700, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote: > > dwcjr 2001/09/02 22:49:13 PDT > > > > Modified files: > > mail/mutt-devel Makefile pkg-plist > > Log: > > Update PORTDOC compliance > > > > Submitted by: maintainer > > Aside from the use of %%PORTDOCS%% mentioned by others, I think that > both this and rev. 1.126 should have bumped PORTREVISION. > > IIRC, the rule for bumping PORTREVISION is that any change which > modifies the package should be indicated as such. The previous > commit would have modified a package built with a different LOCALBASE, > and this commit would have modified a package built with NOPORTDOCS > (e.g. a custom release build). > > Or am I going too far? :) > I would have, but I already bumped portrevision that day so I didn't think that I needed to in the same day. -- David W. Chapman Jr. dwcjr@inethouston.net Raintree Network Services, Inc. <www.inethouston.net> dwcjr@freebsd.org FreeBSD Committer <www.FreeBSD.org> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010903105351.A56566>