>> (10.30.2004 @ 1142 PST): Norikatsu Shigemura said, in 1.1K: <<
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 10:05:59 -0400
> Adam Weinberger <adamw@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> > > > Modified files:
> > > > audio/faac/files patch-gcc
> > > > Log:
> > > > Add missing header to fix build of gstreamer-plugins on >5.x
> > > Thank you. But, please bump PORTREVISION in this case(for
> > > effect to other ports, such as a significant change).
> > >> end of "Re: cvs commit: ports/audio/faac/files patch-gcc" from Norikatsu Shigemura <<
> > Why? If gst-p wouldn't build before on >5.X, why force 4.X users to
> > rebuild faac to fix a problem they didn't have? It was on my suggestion
> > that he didn't bump PORTREVISION, btw.
> If this fix only for faac-self, I don't say that.
> Please note, this fix causes that *gst-p* can build
> on >5.x. In my environment, I already updated
> faac before this fix. I was in trouble. But I noticed
> this commit. If I din't update faac *manually*, I
> couldn't update gst-p.
> Why not *automatically*? To not rebuild on 4.x users.
> Humm. Don't worry about trifles. If faac isn't
> bumped PORTREVISION, update /usr/ports/UPDATING. Or
> *anyone* can't notice how to fix build error problem
> on gst-p, *officially*.
>> end of "Re: cvs commit: ports/audio/faac/files patch-gcc" from Norikatsu Shigemura <<
I might be misunderstanding, but it seems like you're suggesting that
PORTVERSIONS be bumped to signal that previously unbuildable ports can
now be built. I fail to see who this would benefit in any way.
ahze, if faac was unbuildable before, then things are fine the way that
they are. If faac built fine before, but it was only upwardly dependent
ports that could not build, then faac should have a PORTREVISION bump.
Please use this criteria and commit a PORTREVISION bump if need be; you
understand the nature of the changes better than anyone else here.
email@example.com || adamw@FreeBSD.org
firstname.lastname@example.org || email@example.com