Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 22:29:33 -0400 From: Sahil Tandon <sahil@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/security/libotr Makefile ports/security/pidgin-otr Makefile Message-ID: <20110705022932.GD6224@magic.hamla.org> In-Reply-To: <4E122F0C.4080000@FreeBSD.org> References: <201107040755.p647tS0b082384@repoman.freebsd.org> <20110704162342.GD5630@magic.hamla.org> <4E122F0C.4080000@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 14:22:20 -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > On 07/04/2011 09:23, Sahil Tandon wrote: > >On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 07:55:28 +0000, Doug Barton wrote: > > > >> Modified files: > >> security/libotr Makefile > >> security/pidgin-otr Makefile > >> Log: > >> Indicate my preference against bumping PORTREVISION in these ports > >> without a good reason > >> > >> Revision Changes Path > >> 1.24 +2 -0 ports/security/libotr/Makefile > >> 1.34 +2 -0 ports/security/pidgin-otr/Makefile > > > >Pardon my ignorance, but is this in response to the chasing of libgcrypt > >shlib bump or something else? > > Preventative maintenance. Is there an example of when either of these ports was bumped inappropriately? We should not be bumping PORTREVISION without good reason across *all* ports, so I want to understand why these two particular ports that you maintain are being singled out with explicit comments. -- Sahil Tandon <sahil@FreeBSD.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110705022932.GD6224>