Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 09:55:26 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: "Sergey A. Osokin" <osa@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Wen Heping <wen@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [ports] cvs commit: ports/devel/rubygem-stringex Makefile distinfo Message-ID: <20110111095526.GA47595@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20110111091109.GB57172@FreeBSD.org> References: <201101110751.p0B7psXk085874@repoman.freebsd.org> <20110111075157.D91781065788@hub.freebsd.org> <20110111091109.GB57172@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 09:11:09AM +0000, Sergey A. Osokin wrote: > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 07:51:57AM +0000, Wen Heping wrote: > > wen 2011-01-11 07:51:54 UTC > > > > Modified files: > > devel/rubygem-stringex Makefile distinfo > > Log: > > - Revert my last commit to avoid break other ports. > > > > --- ports/devel/rubygem-stringex/Makefile:1.4 Tue Jan 11 07:01:33 2011 > > +++ ports/devel/rubygem-stringex/Makefile Tue Jan 11 07:51:54 2011 > > @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ > > > > # XXX: datamapper requires exact version ~> > > PORTNAME= stringex > > -PORTVERSION= 1.2.0 > > +PORTVERSION= 1.1.0 > > PORTEPOCH= 1 > > Does this changes (i.e. revert back) make sense to bump PORTEPOCH? If the port was reverted quickly enough, it should be OK to skip the rule. Like here, it was done within an hour, which is probably OK. But the maintainer has final vote anyways. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110111095526.GA47595>