From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org Mon May 10 21:32:52 2021 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D5306440AA for ; Mon, 10 May 2021 21:32:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FfDmh20rHz4Ykr for ; Mon, 10 May 2021 21:32:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 44D85644305; Mon, 10 May 2021 21:32:52 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ports-bugs@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44A1F643DFE for ; Mon, 10 May 2021 21:32:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FfDmh1PqSz4YY5 for ; Mon, 10 May 2021 21:32:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23901400B for ; Mon, 10 May 2021 21:32:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 14ALWqFv086666 for ; Mon, 10 May 2021 21:32:52 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 14ALWq9m086665 for ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org; Mon, 10 May 2021 21:32:52 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 255750] databases/pgloader3: minor updates in lisp deps Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 21:32:52 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports & Packages X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s) X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: freebsd-ravioli@duhanic.com X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 21:32:52 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D255750 --- Comment #3 from Mario Duhanic --- (In reply to Rainer Hurling from comment #2) Hi Rainer, thanks for your quick reply! Yes, the VC head doesn't make much sense anymore with git, thanks for point= ing that out! I will put a bit more time into taking care of the provided patch so no bac= kup files will be included (usually I have Makefile with a "phony clean" target= ). Speaking of time: I have built some maintenance tools to maintain quicklisp ports like this one. I've started from scratch again as someone asked me to write about "why I love POSIX/SUS" and I wrote it in that manner only. But = it's not fully automated and so I decided to have some quarterly refresh of that port. I've gone through all diffs and looked into the release notes if available = and I decided that it would be a good idea to increase the PORTREVISION. It mig= ht be interesting to have a flag that marks this port as "update ports Makefile but leave binary"; okay, I could just have let PORTREVISION untouched (i.e.= 0) but the changes were a bit more than just cosmetic and I couldn't tell if t= hey would deeply affect parts I wouldn't think of (this port needs almost 70 distfiles) ). So what do you think: * should we proceed and increase the PORTREVISION as proposed * or should we proceed and remove the PORTREVISION from the new Makefile to offer a new port but not to build it automatically * or leave v3.6.2 as is to wait for some major updates? I will include the patch just after this reply for the case they'll be need= ed without the backup file, sorry for that and thank you very much again for y= our comments! --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=