Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:35:15 +0100 From: Tim Bishop <tim-lists@bishnet.net> To: John Nielsen <john@jnielsen.net> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: how to "downgrade" a port in the tree Message-ID: <1097696115.48373.1.camel@inferno.sixth.bishnet.net> In-Reply-To: <200410131316.12430.john@jnielsen.net> References: <200410131021.30311.john@jnielsen.net> <20041013162708.GO22274@toxic.magnesium.net> <200410131316.12430.john@jnielsen.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 20:16, John Nielsen wrote: > On Wednesday 13 October 2004 10:27 am, Adam Weinberger wrote: > > >> (10.13.2004 @ 1221 PST): John Nielsen said, in 1.3K: << > > > I'm not much of a programmer, but I am the port maintainer for the > > > mail/hotwayd port. The version in the tree is the latest available > > > version, hotwayd 0.8. However, there are some serious bugs in this > > > version that result in mangled e-mail headers. > > > Downgrading a port is perfectly acceptable in this situation. If you > > cannot patch the 0.80 sources to unmangle the email addresses, submit a > > PR downgrading it back to 0.74. All you need to do there is add > > PORTEPOCH= 1 > > One more question: If at some point a new version (say 0.8.1) is released, > will I need to do anything special to indicate that it is preferred over > hotwayd-0.7.4,1? Should I remove the portepoch line, leave it alone, or > bump it up? Leave the PORTEPOCH line - it can't go backwards now. If a new version is released just increment the version as normal, leaving PORTEPOCH alone. Tim. -- Tim Bishop http://www.bishnet.net/tim PGP Key: 0x5AE7D984
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1097696115.48373.1.camel>