Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 02:35:41 +0400 From: Anonymous <swell.k@gmail.com> To: Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de> Cc: Dmitry Marakasov <amdmi3@amdmi3.ru>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: autoconf update Message-ID: <86zkvhfhaa.fsf@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4C927ED0.5050307@bsdforen.de> (Dominic Fandrey's message of "Thu, 16 Sep 2010 22:32:16 %2B0200") References: <4C91446F.3090202@bsdforen.de> <20100916171744.GA48415@hades.panopticon> <4C927ED0.5050307@bsdforen.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de> writes: > On 16/09/2010 19:17, Dmitry Marakasov wrote: >> * Dominic Fandrey (kamikaze@bsdforen.de) wrote: >> >>> Just out of curiosity, why a version bump because of a build >>> dependency? >>> >>> I don't think an autoconf update should have an effect on any >>> /running/ software but build systems. And I don't see how rebuilding >>> all the software improves it. >>> >>> This is not a criticism - I just think there is something I don't >>> understand and that worries me. My guess is to uncover *early* build failures that exp-run didn't catch. Example is the breakage of databases/postgresql84-server + WITH_ICU. >> I second the question. Revision bump seem absolutely unnecessary. > > There was the sweeping commit reason in another thread. > > But I don't really think it would have been a sweeping commit if > it weren't for the version bump. Did you forget that autoconf262 was removed?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86zkvhfhaa.fsf>