From owner-cvs-ports Wed Feb 19 17:32:41 2003 Delivered-To: cvs-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D312737B401; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:32:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from haystack.lclark.edu (lclark.edu [149.175.1.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E43F743FA3; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:32:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eta@lclark.edu) Received: from [149.175.30.191] ([149.175.30.191]) by haystack.lclark.edu (SAVSMTP 3.0.0.44) with SMTP id M2003021917323826146 ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:32:38 -0800 Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/x11/XFree86-4-libraries/files patch-do_text.c patch-programs-Imakefile patch-x11perf-Imakefile patch-xditview-Imakefile patch-xterm-Imakefile ports/x11/XFree86-4-clients Makefile pkg-plist ports/x11/XFree86-4-clients/files manpages From: Eric Anholt To: Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira Cc: Ollivier Robert , ports-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <20030220003737.93031.qmail@exxodus.fedaykin.here> References: <200302190806.h1J86s9x073775@repoman.freebsd.org> <1045642448.705.78.camel@leguin> <20030219093128.GA31959@tara.freenix.org> <1045697895.723.38.camel@leguin> <20030220003737.93031.qmail@exxodus.fedaykin.here> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1045703645.723.46.camel@leguin> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 Date: 19 Feb 2003 17:35:11 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 16:37, Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira wrote: > On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 03:37:53PM -0800, Eric Anholt wrote: > > On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 01:31, Ollivier Robert wrote: > > > According to Eric Anholt: > > > > reported about -clients and it built fine on my machine, but because of > > > > changes I had made to imake for the XFree86 4.2.99.* ports it didn't > > > > build with Xft support. > > > > > > I'd suggest a PORTREVISION bump. > > > > The functionality of the port didn't change, so according to my > > understanding PORTREVISION doesn't get bumped. (I may have been > > confusing: It was only on my local machine that things it built without > > Xft) > > Did the port build before? If yes, then lots of ppl have the port > installed. Do they need to have this updated version instead of > this old one? Unless there is a PORTREVISION bump, ppl who were able > to install the previous unpatched version won't know to upgrade. > If the port did not build before, then it's not a problem. The only difference between now and when the port last built is that it uses libXft.so.2 instead of libXft.so.1 and lacks one error-checking block that no longer applied for libXft.so.2. To me, this is like shared library version chasing that happens for other ports where we don't bump PORTREVISION either, if I remember right. -- Eric Anholt eta@lclark.edu http://people.freebsd.org/~anholt/ anholt@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-ports" in the body of the message