From owner-freebsd-office@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 8 20:04:37 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: office@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 010F8C5B; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 20:04:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kamikaze@bsdforen.de) Received: from mail.server1.bsdforen.de (bsdforen.de [82.193.243.81]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2323BC32; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 20:04:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mobileKamikaze.norad (HSI-KBW-134-3-231-194.hsi14.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de [134.3.231.194]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.server1.bsdforen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3C1DF86110; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 21:04:34 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <51155A52.2080003@bsdforen.de> Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 21:04:34 +0100 From: Dominic Fandrey User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130129 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris Rees Subject: Re: Bumping libreoffice References: <511548F2.4030303@bsdforen.de> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "office@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-office@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Office applications on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 20:04:37 -0000 On 08/02/2013 20:08, Chris Rees wrote: > On 8 February 2013 18:50, Dominic Fandrey wrote: >> Please take note of Porters' Handbook section 5.2.2.1. >> >> Build fixes are NOT a reason to bump portrevision! > > Bash completion was also added, so the package did actually change :) I just have to cite the Porters' Handbook here: > A rule of thumb is to ask yourself whether a change committed to a > port is something which everyone would benefit from having (either > because of an enhancement, fix, or by virtue that the new package > will actually work at all), and weigh that against that fact that > it will cause everyone who regularly updates their ports tree to be > compelled to update. If yes, the PORTREVISION should be bumped. I don't know who wrote this, but I feel like printing it, putting it into a frame and mounting it above my desk. Who ever you are, you are a poet, a true master of the craft. Your words fill my mind with beauty and serenity! On 08/02/2013 20:08, Chris Rees wrote: > Obviously you're annoyed at having to rebuild, and I understand that, It's more like an itch that I finally scratched, because it's hardly the first time that happened. > but standard practice is to bump whenever the resultant package > changes, which in this case it did- up to date packages should be > built on the package building machines. I had an elaborate piece on the extremely frequent and extensive command line interaction of the average bash user with libreoffice in this place. But I thought I can as well leave that to your imagination. :D > Whether or not the change was *really* worth it is neither here nor > there, but I might recommend that you do what I do and simply hold > libreoffice (along with other monster ports) and update it manually. I kinda feel obliged to keep those up to date: http://wiki.bsdforen.de/anwendungen/libreoffice_aus_inoffiziellen_paketen -- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?