--sCNd3Ivk/oijKKf1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 07:32:56AM -0400, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:15:54 +0200 Lubomir Sedlacik wrote:
> > iiuc, the issue needs to be resolved by reinstalling the pyton24
> > package.  in that case this change warrants PKGREVISION bump so the
> > two packages (the broken and the fixed one) are distinguishable.
>=20
> I thought about the PKGREVISION issue when I submitted the original
> patch but didn't bump it because it was fixing a broken build.  In
> general I don't see the point of bumping PKGREVISION if the package
> wasn't building at all without the fix.
>=20
> However, I can see how this is different in that the package(s) that
> it fixes are other than the one being patched.  But the Python24
> package itself wasn't broken.  If we bump the PKGREVISION wouldn't we
> also want to change all the extension dependencies to require that new
> revision as well?

why?  if the python modules built, there is no reason for them to bump
their PKGREVISIONs.  if they didn't, well there is a new version of
python24 for a reason.


regards,

--=20
-- Lubomir Sedlacik <salo@{NetBSD,Xtrmntr,silcnet}.org>   --

--sCNd3Ivk/oijKKf1
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFDFuiviwjDDlS8cmMRAqdIAJ9VmH+YFc5P7pmiAdOUvYss08AedgCggpRj
dP+b+q3ZOImCrc9QrAzHMPg=
=43+J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--sCNd3Ivk/oijKKf1--