Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 10:39:10 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Neil Blakey-Milner <nbm@mithrandr.moria.org> Cc: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org>, Ying-Chieh Liao <ijliao@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/net/socks5 Makefile pkg-plist Message-ID: <20010517103910.A52819@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20010517160707.A5538@rapier.smartspace.co.za>; from nbm@mithrandr.moria.org on Thu, May 17, 2001 at 04:07:08PM %2B0200 References: <ijliao@FreeBSD.org> <200105170926.f4H9Qab60547@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> <20010517160707.A5538@rapier.smartspace.co.za>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 04:07:08PM +0200, Neil Blakey-Milner wrote: > On Thu 2001-05-17 (10:26), Brian Somers wrote: > > Is a PORTREVISION bump necessary for doc/example fixes ? > > > > To me, a PORTVERSION change means I need to rebuild & reinstall the > > Strictly, it should occur whenever the generated package is different in > any way. Theoretically we should also bump it if something like a > static archive that it relies upon gets changed, and things like that. > If done properly, it can help maintain as high a standard as Debian > usually enjoys in binary package dependencies and upgrades. The guidelines say something like "if it's worthwhile for the user to upgrade the package", and trivial fixes are exempted. If something affects a dependency, it's nontrivial. Kris [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.5 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE7BAy+Wry0BWjoQKURAtAgAJ9fH+sMwo1I0De7gYvW3PdJpbYpHwCghsHY yfpIJMAD1CHFWNQmN083PPI= =8EyS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010517103910.A52819>