On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 12:04:41AM +0200, G?bor K?vesd?n wrote: > Pav Lucistnik wrote: > >G?bor K?vesd?n p??e v so 12. 08. 2006 v 23:47 +0200: > > > >>Pav Lucistnik wrote: > >> > >>>pav 2006-08-12 21:26:07 UTC > >>> > >>> FreeBSD ports repository > >>> > >>> Modified files: > >>> security/lsh Makefile > >>> Added files: > >>> security/lsh/files patch-nettle-openssl.c > >>> Log: > >>> - Fix build on 4.X > >>> - Respect CC and CFLAGS > >>> > >>> PR: ports/101750 > >>> Submitted by: Babak Farrokhi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (maintainer) > >>> > >>> Revision Changes Path > >>> 1.35 +2 -0 ports/security/lsh/Makefile > >>> 1.1 +10 -0 ports/security/lsh/files/patch-nettle-openssl.c > >>> (new) > >>> > > > > > >>I think it also needs a PORTREVISION bump if you make a port respect CC > >>since such change affects the build phase of the port. > >> > > > >Imagine you are user with already installed lsh; do you want to > >recompile just because of this change? > > > Yes, because I like optimized binaries. :) > >Imagine you are user who downloads the package from the ftp site. > >Do you mind you don't have this change? > > > > > No, of course not, but there are other cases when a user might not want > to do so, but they are require a PORTREVISION bump, e.g. adding > something specific thing to OPTIONS. If the give user doesn't use the > new functionality, (s)he will get the same, but portupgrade will notice > the bump at all.
Pav is correct that such a minor change does not warrant forcing all users to upgrade. Kris
pgp3ZrFsWQEff.pgp
Description: PGP signature
