Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 17:38:19 -0500 From: Mikhail Teterin <mi+mill@aldan.algebra.com> To: Norikatsu Shigemura <nork@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-ports@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/devel/icu Makefile distinfo pkg-plist ports/devel/icu/files patch-enum-bug patch-install patch-intltest patch-putil Message-ID: <200802071738.20992.mi%2Bmill@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: <20080208073029.3291b675.nork@FreeBSD.org> References: <200802070531.m175VikU015939@repoman.freebsd.org> <200802071629.34089.mi%2Bmill@aldan.algebra.com> <20080208073029.3291b675.nork@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
=DE=C5=D4=D7=C5=D2 07 =CC=C0=D4=C9=CA 2008 05:30 =D0=CF, Norikatsu Shigemur= a =F7=C9 =CE=C1=D0=C9=D3=C1=CC=C9: > If library's major version is bumped, all ports depending on it > should be bumped PORTREVISION. Why? That a port installs shared libraries is known. That the major version= of=20 the library changed is known too (if only from comparing the pkg-plist befo= re=20 and after the commit). Why can't the package-building infrastructure put th= e=20 two-and-two together and figure out, that the dependent ports need=20 rebuilding /without/ explicit PORTREVISION bump? Yours, -mi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200802071738.20992.mi%2Bmill>