Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 21:19:27 +0100 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de> Cc: office@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bumping libreoffice Message-ID: <20130208201926.GB55651@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <511548F2.4030303@bsdforen.de> References: <511548F2.4030303@bsdforen.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--QTprm0S8XgL7H0Dt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 07:50:26PM +0100, Dominic Fandrey wrote: > Please take note of Porters' Handbook section 5.2.2.1. >=20 > Build fixes are NOT a reason to bump portrevision! >=20 Working on ports like LibreOffice is painful enough to have such aggressive reaction. First the bump is deserved just because the package with default options changed and to help the maintainers knowing exactly which version p= eople are building when they report failures. Second LibreOffice is really hard to get building with all the different va= riation of the ports people can have ( mixed libstdc++, not uptodate version of dep= endencies, people with weird cflags and ldflags, and so. Jung-uk Kim is doing a terrific work that is totally uneasy. He manages to = get LibreOffice building correctly and working without too much revision bump. Have a look at the history Jung-uk has never done any graticious bump on th= is port. I personnally resigned on maintaining LibreOffice exactly because of reacti= ons like this one, (also because Jung-uk Kim is actually doing a far better job= on it than me :)). regards, Bapt --QTprm0S8XgL7H0Dt Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlEVXc4ACgkQ8kTtMUmk6EyUigCgoUyz20tvj0n2nIHdwILWuij8 Q34An0X9ctN8S+Rys1861uiqgbgQ8DUg =6POb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --QTprm0S8XgL7H0Dt--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130208201926.GB55651>