Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:56:58 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman <matthew@freebsd.org> To: marino@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r358364 - in head/misc: . valspeak Message-ID: <53A2B3EA.9050701@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <53A2A75E.9060507@marino.st> References: <201406190824.s5J8Ol4D091003@svn.freebsd.org> <53A2A4C0.3050902@freebsd.org> <53A2A75E.9060507@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --CMHQ0qSRGTRhpsmdADeqoSaR3WFVKDHBD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 06/19/14 10:03, John Marino wrote: > On 6/19/2014 10:52, Matthew Seaman wrote: >> On 06/19/14 09:24, John Marino wrote: >>> Author: marino >>> Date: Thu Jun 19 08:24:47 2014 >>> New Revision: 358364 >>> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/358364 >>> QAT: https://qat.redports.org/buildarchive/r358364/ >>> >>> Log: >>> Add new port misc/valspeak (after 1.5 years wait) >>> =20 >>> This was submitted 3 Jan 2013. Thanks for your patience. I took t= he >>> liberty of proving stage support and allows CFLAGS from ports to pa= ss >>> to the vendor makefile. I also updated CONFLICTS to please portlin= t, >>> and removed the unnecessary Makefile patch by using ALL_TARGETS. >>> =20 >>> PR: 174940 >>> Submitted by: Sebastien Santoro >> >> valspeak was already in the ports as part of misk/talkfilters >> >=20 > Hi Matthew, > The port marks a conflict with talkfilters, so maybe this is > intentional? Is there a benefit to having it separately? These talkfilters are all fairly simple lex-based filter programs that make amusing substitutions in any piece of text fed through them. ie. a bunch of fairly small binaries. Unless the valspeak you just committed is different to the one in talkfilters -- which is entirely possible: IIRC these programs have been floating around the net since before the millenium, probably evolved a bit during that time -- then I don't think there's anything much to be gained from a separate port. Cheers, Matthew --CMHQ0qSRGTRhpsmdADeqoSaR3WFVKDHBD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJTorP7XxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQxOUYxNTRFQ0JGMTEyRTUwNTQ0RTNGMzAw MDUxM0YxMEUwQTlFNEU3AAoJEABRPxDgqeTndr0P/i6emPekueLxImcVCDWtgwd0 JM7a2UnADaiSP4cweZ0gjwe14MH8ViV0bEf7wmGEArjYZhC7SgRt31mfJzi/euXK cQzpOk3AcEELaU6c0g9neOv3+KITHnX+mId/I0E+ZOnUztxBJQQQJ95Oook1lF5f PK6m3vFd0fa+SxtoEbKWRm8SyuQlfh6MRl0FciVeYamdejQWM/Qn9cPNuP2Fh6nX DGJzeujfDIWJLsMiBDrrGk/yb6z7tqYNvhV/ToVDRbtfnC0q9ox0lnS4qD0LokUL NhAKIMv7TSj7XZsoCCYP8Y8e+nD13XIBwvl6BwBTce476jCvIBfOZWzKpn9z80BF 3suuJSyWrsMu+qs+GIoN2wdSVqwXgpkAUP543BCFnB/oWM+wV4OfYQAgf7eu2OzR wzZsrFTSkEOcpubjVS10Jj4qoVT4VFa6wY0jr63im9Hsvvu82He3ju3OOIJ8sJAA vcJn1MrIiv1w39915NA3p0rWjiQsgXQw8awNeUfKcC4tfqod5myhBGXwhlldC5kZ HcAejvRuyrsPoTz/MygXSsgcJqxBM6Gr/mv3AkbCXXPEsrViQJ46SWY+jEzb+NQq QlRDSHivTb+GtVP6lH4a5huH4iE+clrB8BnLOo5HfiHtny4cnqYLmH78rvRtnBeI GeSOxtbE5EGoiTy85zYD =eX5R -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --CMHQ0qSRGTRhpsmdADeqoSaR3WFVKDHBD--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?53A2B3EA.9050701>