From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 19 19:06:41 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F82C106566B for ; Wed, 19 May 2010 19:06:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wxs@atarininja.org) Received: from syn.atarininja.org (syn.csh.rit.edu [129.21.50.215]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28D908FC08 for ; Wed, 19 May 2010 19:06:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by syn.atarininja.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id CBCCC5C37; Wed, 19 May 2010 15:07:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 15:07:11 -0400 From: Wesley Shields To: Russell Jackson Message-ID: <20100519190711.GA60286@atarininja.org> References: <4BF43526.4030407@csub.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4BF43526.4030407@csub.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: port update with new dependencies on ports that need to be added X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 19:06:41 -0000 On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:59:50AM -0700, Russell Jackson wrote: > I've got an port patch that includes adding entirely new ports along > with it. Should these new ports be submitted in separate PRs or along > with the maintainer update for the one existing port? It's a matter of preference I think. I usually prefer that the new ports each be submitted in their own PR and the update mention that it requires the new ports to be added. This can be done just by referencing the PR number for the new ports in the update. This way any audit trail information is contained to just the port it applies to. -- WXS