From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 8 01:57:54 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEA281065687; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 01:57:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from 172-17-150-251.globalsuite.net (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 197E914DC72; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 01:57:53 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4F31D6A1.5070501@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:57:53 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD i386; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120201 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Scheidell References: <4F31D347.9060509@FreeBSD.org> <4F31D475.3030307@FreeBSD.org> <4F31D573.7040708@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4F31D573.7040708@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: helping out INDEX builds. best practices? 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, 08 Feb 2012 01:57:54 -0000 On 02/07/2012 17:52, Michael Scheidell wrote: > > > On 2/7/12 8:48 PM, Doug Barton wrote: >> On 02/07/2012 17:43, Michael Scheidell wrote: >>> if a certain port needs to be kept in sync with another portversion, >>> other than putting a comment in the main port "# must bump portversion >>> in port..." where you have two maintainers, is there a better way to do >>> this? >> Take a look at editors/xxe and editors/xml2rfc-xx > > ok, but I said these are two maintainers, Before I maintained either they were both maintained by 2 different people. :) > and I would need to get them > both to use an include file on another person's port. Well yeah, but so what? Most people who maintain ports are cooperative/friendly and are willing to listen to reasoned arguments about solid technical changes. And for the rest we'll apply the LART. > I did say without needing to do an include from another persons' port. Yes, but given that doing it this way is the right answer I ignored you. :) Doug -- It's always a long day; 86400 doesn't fit into a short. Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/