On 2/28/2011 5:35 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 01:18:32 -0300, Marcelo Araujo wrote:
On 02/27/2011 11:32, Sahil Tandon wrote:
If the IPv6 option is off by default (and thus, does not affect the
default package), why do you bump PORTREVISION? I just want to
understand for my own edification when dealing with similar
situations.
Well, I've used the latest paragraph that discribe when we should bump
PORTREVISION.
"""A rule of thumb is to ask yourself whether a change committed to a
port is something which someone, somewhere, would benefit from having
(either because of an enhancement, fix, or by virtue that the new
package will actually work for them). If yes, the PORTREVISION should
be bumped
If you stop here, Marcelo's action seems perfectly reasonable,
especially for a tool that's a) very fast to compile, b) not a critical
dependency, c) doesn't update versions often, and d) growing a
substantive new feature.
And yes, I know I'm talking out of both sides of my head on this, my
point being that reasonable minds can differ on what the right decision
was here. :)
Meanwhile, Marcelo I was being somewhat glib about defaulting all IPv6
options to "ON," but if you intend to do that please first test whether
or not the tool is able to cope with having IPv6 support compiled in,
but no INET6 in the kernel. If it still works ok then by all means you
should default it to on.
Doug (who will try not to be so glib next time)
--
Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "cvs-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
