Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 21:07:03 -0500 From: Michael Scheidell <scheidell@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: helping out INDEX builds. best practices? Message-ID: <4F31D8C7.6020405@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4F31D6A1.5070501@FreeBSD.org> References: <4F31D347.9060509@FreeBSD.org> <4F31D475.3030307@FreeBSD.org> <4F31D573.7040708@FreeBSD.org> <4F31D6A1.5070501@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2/7/12 8:57 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > > ok, but I said these are two maintainers, > Before I maintained either they were both maintained by 2 different > people. :) > 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. > so, in ../devel/subversion16/Makefile.common would need to include Makefile.inc and the only thing in Makefile.inc would be: PORTVERSION= 1.6.17 ok, but if I open a pr for subversion16, I am going to need to hack GNATS and add a 'blocks' or 'depends on' so I get notified when its committed :-) I looked at Makefile.common, and I could include it, and override all the nasty things in it, and make a very ugly makefile. I am going to commit the original pr (which is just a one like change, and pav committed the last makefile, so lart him too!) Not sure how I would think of pav as an luser... ..... I am going to commit it, and work with both maintainers and see if we can't come up with something for the future. (I have also seen where there is a comment in the main Makefile that says "please sync portrevision in port x and commit" (then you are on the hook for two broken ports) -- Michael Scheidell, CTO >*| * SECNAP Network Security Corporation d: +1.561.948.2259 w: http://people.freebsd.org/~scheidell
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F31D8C7.6020405>