From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 25 23:34:16 2008 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 0595016A469 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:34:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7D79913C448 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:34:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 2700 invoked by uid 399); 25 Jan 2008 23:34:14 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.4?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTP; 25 Jan 2008 23:34:14 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 Message-ID: <479A71F4.2060106@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:34:12 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ports-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org References: <200801240236.m0O2awrw054388@repoman.freebsd.org> <20080124181741.GA37539@tirith.brixandersen.dk> <4798F0E3.1030401@FreeBSD.org> <20080124202623.GA46809@tirith.brixandersen.dk> <47993265.2030603@FreeBSD.org> <20080125215714.GA78140@tirith.brixandersen.dk> In-Reply-To: <20080125215714.GA78140@tirith.brixandersen.dk> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/ports-mgmt/portmaster/files portmaster.sh.in 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, 25 Jan 2008 23:34:16 -0000 Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: > On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 04:50:45PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: >> Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: >> >>> Yeah, looks a bit odd - I wonder why the revision number of that file >>> was suddently bumped from 1.28 to 2.0 by CVS... >> There is no mystery. :) I bumped the version on all the files in the port >> to match the new version 2.0 for portmaster itself. See the commit log for >> more information on why. > > That's not exactly "standard procedure", is it? I mean, no other ports > have a direct relation between their version and the revision of their > Makefile in FreeBSD ports? > > Why would this be needed for portmaster? Why do you care? -- This .signature sanitized for your protection