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. Doug _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
