On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 20:22:17 +0200, Florian Viehweger <open...@out-of-creativity.de> wrote:
> > Nothing changed in the build, so I don't think this needs REVISION. > > I'm probably wrong though and someone will correct me. > > according to the porting guide[1], section "Update Checklist", it > seems to need REVISION. > > quote: > > > Each port update needs a package name bump. Otherwise, the update > > mechanism for binary packages won't work. Anything that affects the > > binary package implies a bump. This includes HOMEPAGE, MAINTAINER or > > description changes, changes to patches or build flags. If the > > upstream version has not changed, the package name bump is done by > > incrementing REVISION if already present, otherwise adding REVISION > > = 0 towards the top of the Makefile. > > I'm quite new to the game, please someone correct me if I'm wrong. No, it doesn't require a bump. The license marker is.. just a marker. It's only present in the Makefile, i.e. it doesn't appear in the package. It's there for ports tree maintenance purpose only. It's a comment anyway, make(1) doesn't see it.
