From owner-freebsd-ports Mon Dec 10 14: 8:40 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from alcatraz.iptelecom.net.ua (alcatraz.iptelecom.net.ua [212.9.224.15]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EF6037B405; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:08:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipcard.iptcom.net (ipcard.iptcom.net [212.9.224.5]) by alcatraz.iptelecom.net.ua (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA53520; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 00:08:33 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from sobomax@FreeBSD.org) Received: from notebook.vega.com (h195.229.dialup.iptcom.net [212.9.229.195]) by ipcard.iptcom.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA18514; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 00:08:30 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from sobomax@FreeBSD.org) Message-Id: <200112102208.AAA18514@ipcard.iptcom.net> To: obrien@FreeBSD.org, marcus@marcuscom.com Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org From: Maxim Sobolev Subject: Re: bison port X-Mailer: Pygmy (v0.5.13) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 00:08:25 EET In-Reply-To: <20011210103207.B64816@dragon.nuxi.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 10:32:07 -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 01:39:21AM -0500, Joe Clarke wrote: > > Not sure if it applies here, but should PORTEPOCH be incremeted when > > bison moved from 1.30 back to 1.28? > > Maybe, probably, not sure. There will be a 1.31 some day, so maybe we > can live with it as-is until then? No, as long as we care, or pretend to care, about binary upgradebility we should bump PORTEPOCH each time PORTREVISION decreases, no matter how soon we expect it to be restored. BTW, I've already bumped POREPOCH for bison, some 12 hours ago. :-P -Maxim To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message