On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 11:55:19AM +0300, Boris Samorodov wrote: > On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 16:37:25 +0800 wen heping wrote: > > 2011/3/4 Boris Samorodov <[email protected]>: > > > On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 02:15:10 +0000 (UTC) Wen Heping wrote: > > > > > >> Modified files: > > >> graphics/eog-plugins Makefile > > >> graphics/shotwell Makefile > > >> graphics/ethumb Makefile > > >> multimedia/dvdstyler Makefile > > >> multimedia/mlt Makefile > > >> net/mediatomb Makefile > > >> net/minidlna Makefile > > >> sysutils/tracker-client Makefile > > >> www/swiggle Makefile > > >> x11-fm/gnome-commander2 Makefile > > >> x11-fm/nautilus Makefile > > >> x11-fm/thunar Makefile > > >> x11-toolkits/nucleo Makefile > > >> Log: > > >> - Bump PORTREVISION to chase the update of libexif > > > > > > Was it necessary to bump those and other PORTREVISIONS? So > > > far I was sure that PORTREVISION bumps are necessary as soon > > > In porter's handbook: > > Examples of when PORTREVISION should be bumped: > > .... > > Changes in the packing list or the install-time behavior of the > > package (e.g. change to a script which generates initial data for the > > package, like ssh host keys). > > ..... > > This update changed plist.
I don't think so. Update of *graphics/libexif* changed *that port's* plist (added bunch of new translations), but shlib version was not bumped (it's a minor update), so PORTREVISIONs of the *dependent* ports should had been left intact. Your mentor should have told you this. :-) Now you've essentially urged lots of people around the world to rebuild their perfectly fine packages (considering that libexif is fairly common dependency). ./danfe _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
