Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 21:38:51 -0600 From: "Mike Meyer" <mwm-dated-1011843531.f78a47@mired.org> To: "Dan Langille" <dan@langille.org> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Your Makefile has been rebuilt. Message-ID: <15432.59979.512905.820461@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <19609565@toto.iv>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dan Langille <dan@langille.org> types: > On 18 Jan 2002 at 6:50, Kent Stewart wrote: > > If you are going to use cvsup, then you should be following cvs-all. > Ummm, no... Why should someone using cvsup need to follow cvs-all? In > the context of my question, I was referring to cvsup and ports. We can't > expect every user of the ports tree to follow cvs-all let alone follow > freebsd-ports. Ummm, yes... Of course, you really want to filter out everything that isn't a commit to ports, or a followup to such. And that's a minimal filter for tracking -ports. Mine is more aggressive than that, filtering for things that are changes to a Makefile that aren't tagged as either an upgrade or an update. I don't believe following freebsd-ports is required under any conditions. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15432.59979.512905.820461>