From owner-svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Dec 30 10:40:59 2014
Return-Path: <owner-svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49383EC7;
 Tue, 30 Dec 2014 10:40:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.des.no (smtp.des.no [194.63.250.102])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0688564C87;
 Tue, 30 Dec 2014 10:40:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from nine.des.no (smtp.des.no [194.63.250.102])
 by smtp-int.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD01A9F44;
 Tue, 30 Dec 2014 10:40:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by nine.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001)
 id 59EDB51EC; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:40:41 +0100 (CET)
From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no>
To: Michael Gmelin <grembo@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: svn commit: r370220 - in head/biology: . ncbi-blast
References: <201410062016.s96KGZP8084850@svn.freebsd.org>
 <86r3vjg054.fsf@nine.des.no> <54A04955.3010601@marino.st>
 <86387zfur3.fsf@nine.des.no> <54A05AB7.3020200@marino.st>
 <86sifzef1i.fsf@nine.des.no> <54A05E8E.20802@marino.st>
 <0E188BDF-EBCD-4849-B329-C7109A52BD33@freebsd.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:40:41 +0100
In-Reply-To: <0E188BDF-EBCD-4849-B329-C7109A52BD33@freebsd.org> (Michael
 Gmelin's message of "Sun, 28 Dec 2014 21:08:01 +0100")
Message-ID: <86oaqle7yu.fsf@nine.des.no>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (berkeley-unix)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "svn-ports-head@freebsd.org" <svn-ports-head@freebsd.org>,
 "svn-ports-all@freebsd.org" <svn-ports-all@freebsd.org>,
 "marino@freebsd.org" <marino@freebsd.org>, "jwbacon@tds.net" <jwbacon@tds.net>,
 "ports-committers@freebsd.org" <ports-committers@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1
Precedence: list
List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree <svn-ports-all.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/svn-ports-all>,
 <mailto:svn-ports-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-ports-all/>
List-Post: <mailto:svn-ports-all@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:svn-ports-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-ports-all>,
 <mailto:svn-ports-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 10:40:59 -0000

Michael Gmelin <grembo@freebsd.org> writes:
> I don't really follow the argument of bumping portepoch (it's not a
> very explicit way of stating that this is not the original version -
> IMHO it's actually not what portepoch is about).

I never asked anyone to bump PORTEPOCH.  I merely pointed out that if
the ncbi-blast name were to be used for BLAST, PORTEPOCH would have to
be bumped due to PORTVERSION regressing from 2.2.30 to 2.2.26.

DES
--=20
Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no