On 07/17/2011 03:07, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 17 July 2011 01:47, Doug Barton 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 17 July 2011 01:47, Doug Barton 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, or have
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 w
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. OTO
On 16 Jul 2011 22:26, "Mark Linimon" 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 still prefer to
> 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 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 o
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?
Notes:
- some code in bsd.perl.mk, which had been intended as part of gabor's
SoC
