On Feb 22, 2011, at 5:51 PM, Mikhail T. wrote:
> On 22.02.2011 11:08, Greg Larkin wrote:
>> What's the proper fix at this point - rebump to current PORTREVISION+2,
>> or is a PORTEPOCH bump required?
> Since the pointyhat had not started then, I don't think, there is anything to
> be fixed at al
On 22.02.2011 11:08, Greg Larkin wrote:
What's the proper fix at this point - rebump to current PORTREVISION+2,
or is a PORTEPOCH bump required?
Since the pointyhat had not started then, I don't think, there is
anything to be fixed at all now...
-mi
On 22.02.2011 11:54, Erwin Lansing wrote:
Just reinstating it to PORTREVISON+1 should be good enough. There's no
need to get the, few, people that may have upgraded during the time to
upgrade again to +2. PKGVERSION needs to be the same or higher, it just
cannot go down.
Since the package remai
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Erwin Lansing wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:08:52AM -0500, Greg Larkin wrote:
> > On 2/22/11 10:48 AM, Mark Linimon wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 08:18:14AM -0500, Greg Larkin wrote:
> > >> Is it a good idea to decrement PORTREVISION after the previou
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:08:52AM -0500, Greg Larkin wrote:
> On 2/22/11 10:48 AM, Mark Linimon wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 08:18:14AM -0500, Greg Larkin wrote:
> >> Is it a good idea to decrement PORTREVISION after the previous commit
> >> has been in the tree for some number of hours?
> >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2/22/11 10:48 AM, Mark Linimon wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 08:18:14AM -0500, Greg Larkin wrote:
>> Is it a good idea to decrement PORTREVISION after the previous commit
>> has been in the tree for some number of hours?
>
> Nope. For instance,
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 08:18:14AM -0500, Greg Larkin wrote:
> Is it a good idea to decrement PORTREVISION after the previous commit
> has been in the tree for some number of hours?
Nope. For instance, if a pointyhat run _had_ been started during that
window, the uploaded package would now be wro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2/21/11 11:18 PM, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> mi 2011-02-22 04:18:39 UTC
>
> FreeBSD ports repository
>
> Modified files:
> www/webshMakefile
> Log:
> The PORTREVISION bump was not warranted -- the pre-built package
On 2/21/2011 9:28 PM, Mark Linimon wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 07:06:31PM -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
>> afaik, these aren't kept indefinitely so linking them in commit messages
>> isn't the best idea.
>
> We currently keep the error logs indefinitely. (Perhaps in the future
> we should
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 07:06:31PM -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> afaik, these aren't kept indefinitely so linking them in commit messages
> isn't the best idea.
We currently keep the error logs indefinitely. (Perhaps in the future
we should nuke ones from obsolete branches ...)
mcl
On 2/21/2011 6:45 PM, Olli Hauer wrote:
>Reference:
>
> http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/amd64-errorlogs/a.8-exp.20110129080700/ap22-mod_log_sql-1.101.log
afaik, these aren't kept indefinitely so linking them in commit messages
isn't the best idea.
--
---
The Restless Daemon identified a compiler error while trying to build:
websh-3.6.0b5 maintained by m...@aldan.algebra.com
Makefile ident: $FreeBSD: ports/www/websh/Makefile,v 1.12 2010/02/25 03:42:07
mi Exp $
Excerpt from http://QAT.TecNik93.com/logs/8-STABLE-NPD/websh-3.6.0b5.log :
checking f
The Restless Daemon identified a patch error while trying to build:
websh-3.6.0b5 maintained by m...@aldan.algebra.com
Makefile ident: $FreeBSD: ports/www/websh/Makefile,v 1.11 2010/02/25 03:38:57
mi Exp $
Excerpt from http://QAT.TecNik93.com/logs/8-STABLE-NPD/websh-3.6.0b5.log :
---Begin OPTI
13 matches
Mail list logo
