From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 17 04:41:58 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 DEAB0106564A for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 04:41:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B0BA8FC0C for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 04:41:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 13803 invoked by uid 399); 17 Sep 2010 04:41:57 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.142?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 17 Sep 2010 04:41:57 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <4C92F195.5000605@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 21:41:57 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <4C91446F.3090202@bsdforen.de> <20100916171744.GA48415@hades.panopticon> <4C927ED0.5050307@bsdforen.de> <86zkvhfhaa.fsf@gmail.com> <4C92C14D.3010005@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4C92C14D.3010005@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: autoconf update 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: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 04:41:58 -0000 On 9/16/2010 6:15 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > On 9/16/2010 3:35 PM, Anonymous wrote: >> Dominic Fandrey 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. > > We shouldn't use our users to beta-test infrastructure changes. Sorry, I'm not feeling well atm and realize that I didn't write what I was thinking here. What I intended to say was that we _don't_ intentionally use the ports system to force our users to beta test changes. I think it goes without saying that we _shouldn't_ do this, although I think that changes like this are a platinum-coated example of why we need to have -stable and -dev branches for ports. Doug -- ... and that's just a little bit of history repeating. -- Propellerheads Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/