From owner-svn-ports-svnadmin@freebsd.org Mon Sep 7 10:11:38 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-svnadmin@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B33FA9C5A63; Mon, 7 Sep 2015 10:11:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DEBE1B43; Mon, 7 Sep 2015 10:11:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st) Received: from [192.168.0.23] (unknown [130.255.19.36]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96A8B43BAA; Mon, 7 Sep 2015 05:11:24 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: svn commit: r396258 - svnadmin/conf To: Greg Lewis , ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-svnadmin@freebsd.org References: <201509070945.t879jF6C061050@repo.freebsd.org> Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org From: John Marino Message-ID: <55ED62C0.9040708@marino.st> Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 12:11:12 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <201509070945.t879jF6C061050@repo.freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: svn-ports-svnadmin@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for svnadmin of the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2015 10:11:38 -0000 On 9/7/2015 11:45 AM, Greg Lewis wrote: > Author: glewis > Date: Mon Sep 7 09:45:14 2015 > New Revision: 396258 > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/396258 > > Log: > . Update is complete, remove increased limit. > Was this a size-of-commit restriction? I was hopeful that these 35 Mb openjdk ports would be reworked somehow (prepatched-rerolled-tarball perhaps) to convert these to normal sized ports. Is it a possibility that will happen? I guess opinions are split if 35 Mb ports are "ok" or not but I'd rather see them reduced before circumventing controls myself. Obviously IMHO. John