Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 21:04:34 +0100 From: Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de> To: Chris Rees <crees@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "office@freebsd.org" <office@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Bumping libreoffice Message-ID: <51155A52.2080003@bsdforen.de> In-Reply-To: <CADLo838ZVzg%2BJ86j%2BF-40sA_88o4cxECw3R0pUtUzX6ikXkWpQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <511548F2.4030303@bsdforen.de> <CADLo838ZVzg%2BJ86j%2BF-40sA_88o4cxECw3R0pUtUzX6ikXkWpQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 08/02/2013 20:08, Chris Rees wrote: > On 8 February 2013 18:50, Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de> wrote: >> Please take note of Porters' Handbook section 5.2.2.1. >> >> Build fixes are NOT a reason to bump portrevision! > > Bash completion was also added, so the package did actually change :) I just have to cite the Porters' Handbook here: > A rule of thumb is to ask yourself whether a change committed to a > port is something which everyone would benefit from having (either > because of an enhancement, fix, or by virtue that the new package > will actually work at all), and weigh that against that fact that > it will cause everyone who regularly updates their ports tree to be > compelled to update. If yes, the PORTREVISION should be bumped. I don't know who wrote this, but I feel like printing it, putting it into a frame and mounting it above my desk. Who ever you are, you are a poet, a true master of the craft. Your words fill my mind with beauty and serenity! On 08/02/2013 20:08, Chris Rees wrote: > Obviously you're annoyed at having to rebuild, and I understand that, It's more like an itch that I finally scratched, because it's hardly the first time that happened. > but standard practice is to bump whenever the resultant package > changes, which in this case it did- up to date packages should be > built on the package building machines. I had an elaborate piece on the extremely frequent and extensive command line interaction of the average bash user with libreoffice in this place. But I thought I can as well leave that to your imagination. :D > Whether or not the change was *really* worth it is neither here nor > there, but I might recommend that you do what I do and simply hold > libreoffice (along with other monster ports) and update it manually. I kinda feel obliged to keep those up to date: http://wiki.bsdforen.de/anwendungen/libreoffice_aus_inoffiziellen_paketen -- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51155A52.2080003>