Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:46:43 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, Wesley Shields <wxs@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/net-im/libpurple Makefile Message-ID: <20090324214643.GA22603@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <49C952AE.8080509@FreeBSD.org> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 02:37:50PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > > > Per what I see, shlib version of libsilcclient was bumped during > > devel/silc-toolkit update. Since net-im/libpurple explicitly depends on > > named library, > > IFF you have that option enabled. It's off by default. There could be folks out there that build their own set of packages with whatever OPTIONS combination they want. > > 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? ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090324214643.GA22603>