Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/netpbm Makefile

2011-05-12 Thread Boris Samorodov
On Thu, 12 May 2011 16:27:34 +0400 Boris Samorodov wrote: > On Wed, 11 May 2011 17:58:09 + (UTC) Dirk Meyer wrote: > > dinoex 2011-05-11 17:58:09 UTC > > FreeBSD ports repository > > Modified files: > > graphics/netpbm Makefile > > Log: > > - use MAKE_JOBS_SAFE > > P

Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/netpbm Makefile

2011-05-12 Thread Boris Samorodov
On Wed, 11 May 2011 17:58:09 + (UTC) Dirk Meyer wrote: > dinoex 2011-05-11 17:58:09 UTC > FreeBSD ports repository > Modified files: > graphics/netpbm Makefile > Log: > - use MAKE_JOBS_SAFE > PR: 156930 > Submitted by: Matthias Andree Unfortunately i

Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/netpbm Makefile

2011-04-04 Thread Sahil Tandon
On Sun, 2011-04-03 at 20:59:46 -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > >>Meanwhile, given the way that our ports and packages work bumping > >>PORTREVISION is a blunt tool, and has tradeoffs. IMO ports > >>committers need to have some firm guidelines for the common cases, > >>but also to use their discretion

Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/netpbm Makefile

2011-04-03 Thread Doug Barton
On 04/03/2011 13:49, Sahil Tandon wrote: On Sun, 2011-04-03 at 13:39:13 -0700, Doug Barton wrote: On 4/2/2011 10:57 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote: I share your rationale for the most part, but I am still unclear about what some might call an 'edge' case. It sounds to me like what you want are clear

Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/netpbm Makefile

2011-04-03 Thread Sahil Tandon
On Sun, 2011-04-03 at 13:39:13 -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > On 4/2/2011 10:57 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote: > >I share your rationale for the most part, but I am still unclear about > >what some might call an 'edge' case. > > It sounds to me like what you want are clear, bright lines that we > can form

Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/netpbm Makefile

2011-04-03 Thread Doug Barton
On 4/2/2011 10:57 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote: I share your rationale for the most part, but I am still unclear about what some might call an 'edge' case. It sounds to me like what you want are clear, bright lines that we can form policy around. I wish you luck with that. :) Meanwhile, given the

Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/netpbm Makefile

2011-04-02 Thread Sahil Tandon
On Sat, 2011-04-02 at 13:54:44 -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > On 04/02/2011 08:52, Sahil Tandon wrote: > >On Sat, 2011-04-02 at 12:05:34 +, Dirk Meyer wrote: > > > >>dinoex 2011-04-02 12:05:34 UTC > >> > >> FreeBSD ports repository > >> > >> Modified files: > >> graphics/netpbm

Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/netpbm Makefile

2011-04-02 Thread Doug Barton
On 04/02/2011 08:52, Sahil Tandon wrote: On Sat, 2011-04-02 at 12:05:34 +, Dirk Meyer wrote: dinoex 2011-04-02 12:05:34 UTC FreeBSD ports repository Modified files: graphics/netpbm Makefile Log: - drop CONFLICTS with megetty Submitted by: olgeni Does PORT

Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/netpbm Makefile

2011-04-02 Thread Sahil Tandon
On Sat, 2011-04-02 at 12:05:34 +, Dirk Meyer wrote: > dinoex 2011-04-02 12:05:34 UTC > > FreeBSD ports repository > > Modified files: > graphics/netpbm Makefile > Log: > - drop CONFLICTS with megetty > Submitted by: olgeni Does PORTREVISION need to be bumped when