From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 9 21:16:18 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6288C106564A; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 21:16:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from 172-17-198-245.globalsuite.net (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E92871530FA; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 21:16:17 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4EE27AA1.9080505@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 13:16:17 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111110 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bf1783@gmail.com References: <201112090933.pB99XU1p057960@repoman.freebsd.org> <4EE25274.5040602@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: undefined OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "b. f." , cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, Philippe Audeoud , cvs-ports@freebsd.org, Chris Rees Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/security/p5-IO-Socket-SSL Makefile distinfo X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 21:16:18 -0000 On 12/09/2011 11:44, b. f. wrote: > On 12/9/11, Chris Rees wrote: >> On 9 Dec 2011 18:25, "Doug Barton" wrote: > >> Surely there's a lot of value placed on being in sync with upstream? Too much, that was sort of my point. :) > If there are no changes relevant to FreeBSD, there is little value in > updating, and some cost, since updating leads to rebuilds in > package-building clusters, in tinderboxes, and on the machines of many > users. Right ... not to mention needlessly updating production systems. >> Are we supposed to pick and choose updates based on the maintainer's whims? > > Of course not on whims, but on the changes in the new version. The port maintainer's job is not to blindly update everything in sight. Otherwise the job would be called "UPDATER=". :) That said, Philippe's answer was that the changelog is not complete, and that there actually were valuable changes included in this revision. I'm happy to take his word for that. Doug -- [^L] Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/