From owner-freebsd-office@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 8 20:25:54 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 6E76A5E6; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 20:25:54 +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 63E21DE8; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 20:25:53 +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 5DD62861DE; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 21:25:52 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <51155F4F.7080909@bsdforen.de> Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 21:25:51 +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> <51155A52.2080003@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 20:25:54 -0000 On 08/02/2013 21:16, Chris Rees wrote: > On 8 February 2013 20:04, Dominic Fandrey wrote: >> 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 > > Wow, I've been on the lookout for libreoffice packages for ages-- had > you publicised these before?? Yes, just recently on ports@. And Yamagi did mid 2012ish. It all began with OOo package sharing in 2007: http://www.bsdforen.de/showthread.php?t=17403 -- 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?