Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 21:25:51 +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: <51155F4F.7080909@bsdforen.de> In-Reply-To: <CADLo839%2BtGgk_1N8c_vmVT3%2BOdRP8XmTey33-A9CQ7qMoV9XzA@mail.gmail.com> References: <511548F2.4030303@bsdforen.de> <CADLo838ZVzg%2BJ86j%2BF-40sA_88o4cxECw3R0pUtUzX6ikXkWpQ@mail.gmail.com> <51155A52.2080003@bsdforen.de> <CADLo839%2BtGgk_1N8c_vmVT3%2BOdRP8XmTey33-A9CQ7qMoV9XzA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 08/02/2013 21:16, Chris Rees wrote: > On 8 February 2013 20:04, Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de> wrote: >> 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 > > Wow, I've been on the lookout for libreoffice packages for ages-- had > you publicised these before?? Yes, just recently on ports@. And Yamagi did mid 2012ish. It all began with OOo package sharing in 2007: http://www.bsdforen.de/showthread.php?t=17403 -- 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?51155F4F.7080909>