Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:29:15 +0100 From: Pietro Cerutti <gahr@FreeBSD.org> To: bf1783@gmail.com Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, portmgr@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r307833 - head/x11-toolkits/fox16 Message-ID: <20121127142915.GK53110@gahrfit.gahr.ch> In-Reply-To: <CAGFTUwNEm-ZZBu_a0NNQrfQJA5uX%2BOcXPX8j3=WghdevWJBQXQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <201211271108.qARB8u5F050244@svn.freebsd.org> <CAGFTUwOf%2BzsEP0jKBXfpgPMM0u1OwDNrA0pYJdqoZiTjJrQj9Q@mail.gmail.com> <20121127124512.GJ53110@gahrfit.gahr.ch> <CAGFTUwNEm-ZZBu_a0NNQrfQJA5uX%2BOcXPX8j3=WghdevWJBQXQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--ogUXNSQj4OI1q3LQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2012-Nov-27, 08:12, b. f. wrote: > On 11/27/12, Pietro Cerutti <gahr@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On 2012-Nov-27, 07:37, b. f. wrote: > >> On 11/27/12, Pietro Cerutti <gahr@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> > Author: gahr > >> > Date: Tue Nov 27 11:08:55 2012 > >> > New Revision: 307833 > >> > URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/307833 > >> > > >> > Log: > >> > - Update to 1.6.47 > >> > * Prototype of wndproc() was not correct for 64-bit Windows. > >> > - Remove shlib versions from LIB_DEPENDS > >> > > >> > Feature safe: yes > >> > >> I'm confused: we have changes like this that clearly aren't feature > >> safe going into the tree without explicit permission from portmgr, and > >> Ken stating that the release was moving forward with only a limited > >> set of packages. So is the ports tree still frozen, or not? > > > > Well I didn't see it as a sweeping change, since only a handful of ports > > were changed. I guess personal judgment is needed to sort out > > > > "A sweeping change is a commit that would affect a non-trivial number of > > packages" > > > > from > > > > "shared library version bumps" (which are said to qualify as sweep > > commits) > > > > In this case, only a few (and small) ports were affected, which is why I > > went forward. >=20 > Could we have a clear and explicit statement from portmgr about what > is permitted? I don't mean to pick on Pietro: this question keeps > coming up. A number of us have been using the rule of thumb that any > non-cosmetic change that affects more than one default package isn't > possible without permission. If there is a lesser standard, or if the > tree should be considered frozen only for a subset of packages that > will be on the release media, then I can start making a few changes > that some users have requested. Agreed. Another thing which is not clear is, why 5 individual updates of 5 ports are OK but 5 PORTREVISION bumps because of a shlib change in one commit is not OK? --=20 Pietro Cerutti The FreeBSD Project gahr@FreeBSD.org PGP Public Key: http://gahr.ch/pgp --ogUXNSQj4OI1q3LQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlC0zjoACgkQwMJqmJVx945pZACfXyVDfcJj/2P6BYS8HV2MLl1T d1UAoKjYNYq3586ozCFAI/dTIBpEkQwm =3tcQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ogUXNSQj4OI1q3LQ--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121127142915.GK53110>