Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2018 15:37:16 +0200 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 Subject: Re: svn commit: r477954 - head/databases/mantis Message-ID: <1535204236.17355.1485877008.5294DAC3@webmail.messagingengine.com> In-Reply-To: <CAFU734x6u%2BFAA1BaExqnm%2BR10BsR6jLK2dL=-6zAVrSfANM3Tg@mail.gmail.com> References: <201808241032.w7OAWkSq077323@repo.freebsd.org> <CAFU734x6u%2BFAA1BaExqnm%2BR10BsR6jLK2dL=-6zAVrSfANM3Tg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1535204236.17355.1485877008.5294DAC3>