From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 4 19:30:01 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEDF384F for ; Sun, 4 Nov 2012 19:30:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94A9D8FC14 for ; Sun, 4 Nov 2012 19:30:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qA4JU1dB024768 for ; Sun, 4 Nov 2012 19:30:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id qA4JU14H024767; Sun, 4 Nov 2012 19:30:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 19:30:01 GMT Message-Id: <201211041930.qA4JU14H024767@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Chris Petrik Subject: Re: ports/173183: [PATCH] devel/flyspray fix patch X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: Chris Petrik List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2012 19:30:01 -0000 The following reply was made to PR ports/173183; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Chris Petrik To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, c.petrik.sosa@gmail.com Cc: Subject: Re: ports/173183: [PATCH] devel/flyspray fix patch Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:20:22 +0100 --bcaec554dab8a5887204cdb042b7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 The only difference between mine and nicks patch is the addition of PORTREVISION which I don't think is valid in this case. If it is then nick's patch would suffice and fix the patch issues the ports currently has. --bcaec554dab8a5887204cdb042b7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 The only difference between mine and nicks patch is the addition of PORTREVISION which I don't think is valid in this case. If it is then nick's patch would suffice and fix the patch issues the ports currently has. --bcaec554dab8a5887204cdb042b7--