On 17 July 2011 01:47, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 07/16/2011 17:35, Mark Linimon wrote:
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:51:04PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote:
If it's unconditionally included, how does that exempt it from exp-runs?
Surely it's equally risky to commit to it as bsd.port.mk,
On 07/17/2011 03:07, Chris Rees wrote:
On 17 July 2011 01:47, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 07/16/2011 17:35, Mark Linimon wrote:
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:51:04PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote:
If it's unconditionally included, how does that exempt it from exp-runs?
Surely it's equally
On 07/15/2011 22:07, Mark Linimon wrote:
Per Doug Barton's suggestion, I have reworked the long-standing patch
to bsd.perl.mk to be an exact copy of the logic in bsd.port.mk, and
done an -exp run. Does anyone have any objection if I commit this
patch?
This is actually the exact opposite of
If bsd.perl.mk is going to be included unconditionally, what's the
point of having it in a separate file?
- perl team can make changes (e.g. minor version update of perl)
without -exp run and portmgr approval. (I would still prefer to do
-exp runs for major version updates, of course).
On 16 Jul 2011 22:26, Mark Linimon lini...@lonesome.com wrote:
If bsd.perl.mk is going to be included unconditionally, what's the
point of having it in a separate file?
- perl team can make changes (e.g. minor version update of perl)
without -exp run and portmgr approval. (I would
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:51:04PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote:
If it's unconditionally included, how does that exempt it from exp-runs?
Surely it's equally risky to commit to it as bsd.port.mk, or have I missed
something?
In a perfect world we'd have -exp runs for everything, I suppose. OTOH
On 07/16/2011 17:35, Mark Linimon wrote:
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:51:04PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote:
If it's unconditionally included, how does that exempt it from exp-runs?
Surely it's equally risky to commit to it as bsd.port.mk, or have I missed
something?
In a perfect world we'd have
