From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 24 21:52:03 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 417A91065696 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:52:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx22.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B12138FC2C for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:52:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 13595 invoked by uid 399); 24 Mar 2009 21:51:59 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.24?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 24 Mar 2009 21:51:59 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <49C955FD.5090005@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:51:57 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexey Dokuchaev References: <200903240023.n2O0NVBb013624@repoman.freebsd.org> <49C84088.9020505@FreeBSD.org> <20090324021518.GC1292@atarininja.org> <49C84339.60201@FreeBSD.org> <20090324104032.GA47617@FreeBSD.org> <49C952AE.8080509@FreeBSD.org> <20090324214643.GA22603@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20090324214643.GA22603@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: id=D5B2F0FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, Wesley Shields , cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/net-im/libpurple Makefile 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: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:52:05 -0000 Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: >> This is one of the main reasons I'd like to propose a replacement for >> PORTREVISION/PORTEPOCH that can more easily be set within an optional >> part of the Makefile. > > While having certain deficiencies, PORTREVISION/PORTEPOCH had worked > pretty well for a long time, yet being simple enough to not get in the > way. Will your alternative give more than it will take from settled way > of doing things? I already posted briefly on the bash thread about my idea, but the answer to your question is yes. I'm not proposing taking anything away, but I am proposing something that will eliminate the need for users to needlessly recompile ports that are already up to date for them based on the options they actually HAVE chosen. Doug