Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 01:36:03 +0400 From: "Sergey A. Osokin" <osa@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/netpbm Makefile (fwd) Message-ID: <20030830213603.GP41860@freebsd.org.ru> In-Reply-To: <20030830025225.D15016@znfgre.qbhto.arg> References: <20030830025225.D15016@znfgre.qbhto.arg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 02:54:26AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > Can someone please explain to me why fixing a plist necessitates bumping > portrevision? If I already have the port installed, the plist is already > broken. There is nothing about this fix that makes me want to reinstall > the port. > > IMO, people bump portrevision WAY WAY too often, causing a lot of wasted > time for people needlessly updating ports that work exactly the same > after the upgrade. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Sergey A. Osokin <osa@FreeBSD.org> > To: ports-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org > Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 06:10:13 -0700 (PDT) > Subject: cvs commit: ports/graphics/netpbm Makefile > > osa 2003/08/29 06:10:13 PDT > > FreeBSD ports repository > > Modified files: > graphics/netpbm Makefile > Log: > Bump PORTREVISION, which I forgot to do in previous commit (fix pkg-plist). > > Notify from: sf > > Revision Changes Path > 1.77 +1 -0 ports/graphics/netpbm/Makefile My answer is a very simply. From "Porter's Handbook": <quote> Examples of when PORTREVISION should be bumped: ... Changes in the packing list... </quote> Please tell me where is my fault. -- Rgdz, /"\ ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN Sergey Osokin aka oZZ, \ / AGAINST HTML MAIL http://ozz.pp.ru/ X AND NEWS / \
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030830213603.GP41860>