Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 19:43:18 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> To: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/devel/bison Makefile distinfo ports/devel/bison/files patch-getargs.c patch-reader.c Message-ID: <20011210194318.A16652@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20011210222737.J30626@squall.waterspout.com>; from will@csociety.org on Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 10:27:37PM -0500 References: <200112110158.fBB1wXA84599@freefall.freebsd.org> <20011210222737.J30626@squall.waterspout.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 10:27:37PM -0500, Will Andrews wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 05:58:33PM -0800, David E. O'Brien wrote: > > Log: > > This PORTEPOCH for life crap is stupid. > > Back out the downgrade, I would have never agreed to it if I had know... > > This leaves a window of downgradededness 18 hours -- people can just live > > with that. > > Once rules are set, you're not supposed to break them. If you > have a problem with the rule, bring it up on ports@ and suggest a > better way to do things. The fact is we need PORTEPOCH to ensure > forward versioning always. Please put it back in this port. Explain what it does to the processing? PORTEPOCH was added for the case of PORTVERSION=20011210 going to PORTVERSION=2.3 -- an obvious change in the version number scheme. It seems you are trying to take a statement that was said under the assumption of my example above to be absolute irregardless of situation. From the two comments from you and sobomax, I am starting to think no one knows how PORTEPOCH is processed and exactly what it affects. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011210194318.A16652>