> > > 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. Thank you for clarification.
Updated diff attached. Index: Makefile =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/ports/graphics/chafa/Makefile,v retrieving revision 1.1.1.1 diff -u -p -u -p -r1.1.1.1 Makefile --- Makefile 22 Sep 2020 22:08:23 -0000 1.1.1.1 +++ Makefile 24 Sep 2020 18:58:37 -0000 @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ HOMEPAGE = https://hpjansson.org/chafa/ MAINTAINER = Florian Viehweger <open...@out-of-creativity.de> -# GPLv3+ +# LGPLv3+ PERMIT_PACKAGE = Yes WANTLIB += ICE MagickCore-6.Q16 MagickWand-6.Q16 SM X11 Xext Xt -- greetings, Florian Viehweger
