https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=257131
Yasuhiro Kimura changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|Open|In Progress
Assignee|p
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=258199
Yasuhiro Kimura changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|Open|In Progress
CC|
Dear port maintainer,
The portscout new distfile checker has detected that one or more of your
ports appears to be out of date. Please take the opportunity to check
each of the ports listed below, and if possible and appropriate,
submit/commit an update. If any ports have already been updated, you
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=259456
--- Comment #5 from Yuri Victorovich ---
I agree with p5b2e9...@t-online.de, the <0.16 part should be removed and it
should be retested.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
** The following ports have a version number that sorts before a previous one **
For many package tools to work correctly, it is of utmost importance that
version numbers of a port form a monotonic increasing sequence over time.
Refer to the FreeBSD Porter's Handbook, 'Package Naming Convention
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=257333
--- Comment #2 from Goran Mekić ---
Any chance we can merge this?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=259456
--- Comment #4 from p5b2e9...@t-online.de ---
s/privoxy/mitmproxy/ above
sorry for the typo.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=259456
--- Comment #3 from p5b2e9...@t-online.de ---
At least to me it makes almost none sense pinning maximum versions of
dependencies. This practice leads to frequently broken ports, which *must not*
be our primary goal in a dynamic environment o
