Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:51:57 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@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: <49C955FD.5090005@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20090324214643.GA22603@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> <20090324214643.GA22603@FreeBSD.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
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. Doughome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49C955FD.5090005>