Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 06:33:24 -0500 From: Mark Felder <feld@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org, Niclas Zeising <zeising@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r349818 - head/www/nginx Message-ID: <B05A71B8-F35E-4D9C-9F4C-6FF60A1A4CEA@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20140409060926.GA94220@FreeBSD.org> References: <201404010040.s310e5en074822@svn.freebsd.org> <5342F077.8000105@freebsd.org> <C72A0BB6-90BF-4456-ABD1-5F51AD352946@FreeBSD.org> <20140409060926.GA94220@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Apr 9, 2014, at 1:09, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >>=20 >> - Update made to www/nginx that should require a PORTREVISION bump >> - Couldn't bump PORTREVISION and remove PORTEPOCH >=20 > Could you explain what exactly do you mean by "couldn't bump PORTREVISI= ON"? > What prevented it from getting bumped? I recall now I had bumped PORTREVISION and removed PORTEPOCH which did = not work because the version technically went backwards. When I tried to = have both PORTERVISION and PORTEPOCH I was getting FATAL errors with = portlint. I wonder if it was an issue with the order? I thought I tested = both ways, but perhaps I'm mistaken. Testing right now shows that it = should have worked, so I'm not sure why I came to the conclusion that = the only option was to bump PORTEPOCH.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?B05A71B8-F35E-4D9C-9F4C-6FF60A1A4CEA>