On 12/12/14 11:54 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Dec 12, 2014, at 8:49 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Revision
129391
Author
[email protected]
Date
2014-12-12 06:49:41 -0800 (Fri, 12 Dec 2014)
Log Message
p5-cgi-speedycgi: add p5.18 5.20 to an otherwise broken port (#33479)
Modified Paths
• trunk/dports/perl/p5-cgi-speedycgi/Portfile
Diff
Modified: trunk/dports/perl/p5-cgi-speedycgi/Portfile (129390 => 129391)
--- trunk/dports/perl/p5-cgi-speedycgi/Portfile 2014-12-12 14:44:36 UTC (rev
129390)
+++ trunk/dports/perl/p5-cgi-speedycgi/Portfile 2014-12-12 14:49:41 UTC (rev
129391)
@@ -1,10 +1,13 @@
# -*- coding: utf-8; mode: tcl; tab-width: 4; indent-tabs-mode: nil;
c-basic-offset: 4 -*- vim:fenc=utf-8:ft=tcl:et:sw=4:ts=4:sts=4
# $Id$
+# Port is broken:
+# - http://trac.macports.org/ticket/33479
+
PortSystem 1.0
PortGroup perl5 1.0
-perl5.branches 5.10 5.12 5.14 5.16
+perl5.branches 5.10 5.12 5.14 5.16 5.18 5.20
I don't understand this change. If we're adding perl branches without testing
that they work, then let's just do that for all the remaining perl module ports
all at once, as was suggested in months past. I had wanted to avoid that,
because I like our standing policy of verifying that a port builds before
committing a change. If we're not going to do that here, then there's no reason
to do each port separately.
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
I agree with Ryan. While it would be easy to do a bulk change on the
remaining ports that do not support 5.18 5.20, if a known issue exists
with a particular port then it should be fixed before making the update.
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
