From owner-svn-ports-head@freebsd.org  Sat Aug 25 13:37:25 2018
Return-Path: <owner-svn-ports-head@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FEBD108B0EA;
 Sat, 25 Aug 2018 13:37:25 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from tobik@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.25])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2E41704E3;
 Sat, 25 Aug 2018 13:37:24 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from tobik@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44])
 by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 397C32125E;
 Sat, 25 Aug 2018 09:37:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from web5 ([10.202.2.215])
 by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 25 Aug 2018 09:37:17 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
 messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type
 :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references
 :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=4lIqbD
 CI9bIKrSmMqTDiizPQAnR0hr3hzOpsQLOGIIM=; b=J7KRhTQI+3MDMJNbYdvzDO
 iX4yVkBRX73Pkh8QfbEBt+Kp80OS6R9QqUtHnvofGjKUeawAJNGBG7d6QQsbIpoY
 iSwYbeuemIlj6Cj+HZEiIG4dZPycgxfTaCbxoIWJ7HTVe2bzjqlfyH5suFlbYSfH
 aqjowP54rbAP51DZu62I2DHxEZRxFnCly6K5aQq3VMUvpplfFZK/IYRblB71Lf5X
 KH7B04YY5sUBhy7wzLYx5lFG5qsr+QVOtbgL+HGtTZjZZculyYD/EsqLWRzr5Szo
 hs+Q1Kmi99BiroCWZj3AL30Y28K6F2ucU2B2W94xY/bCsfsLTWT+YoUHyYthKH4g
 ==
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:jFuBW43XpNuvZFv_6hqDVrrUBZ5Ae-yliZrWoWxST8TStVWHY_A5mA>
 <xmx:jFuBW2BXiFvtcg6nqiKJAg3VolOzcZd24rupY7vxtxS9h75zuOYzRA>
 <xmx:jFuBW0Tb22jHysQoBT4ZcHMCxOiH69E8kIELOuJoLdOouCyc_WXhhQ>
 <xmx:jFuBW5VguiHL4n7fkAKUXdR7epHnaNqFvNMJmQvH_HE37v15PRpu_g>
 <xmx:jFuBW0EUiLBD7SVdVa6JjxXf5PLINd6yug5WyJQxUOcrDTAwbR-PUQ>
 <xmx:jVuBWzr3vk5jXJvqH6KkEjIDrQCnJazLE923CwBMpO1jy_ifUFSX4A>
X-ME-Sender: <xms:jFuBW3rQyY07W37WVFGsSWt-21fb4jCkQf-sq_zd7dxlb2yRIznyjg>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99)
 id 7928D9E1E9; Sat, 25 Aug 2018 09:37:16 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <1535204236.17355.1485877008.5294DAC3@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: Tobias Kortkamp <tobik@FreeBSD.org>
To: Thomas Zander <thomas.e.zander@googlemail.com>
Cc: "ports-committers@FreeBSD.org" <ports-committers@freebsd.org>,
 svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-7b72137a
In-Reply-To: <CAFU734x6u+FAA1BaExqnm+R10BsR6jLK2dL=-6zAVrSfANM3Tg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201808241032.w7OAWkSq077323@repo.freebsd.org>
 <CAFU734x6u+FAA1BaExqnm+R10BsR6jLK2dL=-6zAVrSfANM3Tg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: svn commit: r477954 - head/databases/mantis
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2018 15:37:16 +0200
X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head
 <svn-ports-head.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/svn-ports-head>, 
 <mailto:svn-ports-head-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-ports-head/>
List-Post: <mailto:svn-ports-head@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:svn-ports-head-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-ports-head>,
 <mailto:svn-ports-head-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2018 13:37:25 -0000

On Sat, Aug 25, 2018, at 15:26, Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 at 12:33, Tobias Kortkamp <tobik@freebsd.org> wrote:
> 
> >   The checksums and sizes from 2.9.0 and 2.15.0 are identical because
> >   GH_TAGNAME was not updated as well, so the update to 2.15.0 never
> >   actually happened.
> > +PORTEPOCH=     1
> 
> Wouldn't it have made more sense to perform the actual update rather
> than have another port with PORTEPOCH (which is really a last-resort
> workaround)?

Updating things correctly takes time.  In the meantime we should not
pretend we have 2.15.0 when we do not, especially if this is supposed
to solve some security problems.

The update attempt is in https://reviews.freebsd.org/D16890 and is
waiting for some feedback to make sure it actually works not only
for me.  I would appreciate some real feedback rather than nitpicking
about now having PORTEPOCH.