On 2015/04/06 11:59, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote: > Stuart Henderson said: > > I think we should remove the existing ones and make it an error to > > specify both GH_TAGNAME and GH_COMMIT. Thoughts? If people think this > > is a good idea I'll do the ports mop-up. > > I'd rather see a warning saying that GH_COMMIT is ignored and should be > removed. I see no reason to bump all ports that currently specify both.
This way it's crystal clear; people frequently copy an existing port as a template (rather than using Makefile.template) so it's useful to remove examples of the "wrong way to do it".
