So, in short, you "prepared" an update for a port which is maintained (by me) by just taking the "newest" release and checking that it compiles ?
It didn't occur to you that there might be a reason the port is *lagging* by so much from the release ? like for instance, support for OpenBSD libraries being totally fubar in cmake over a long period of time ? I've been talking on-and-off to the people at kitware, who told me they put some support in cmake 2.8, which I actually intended to take for a test drive during the lock period (and I'm doing so now), so if it kind of works, you can expect I'll fix the remaining parts. After all, I've ported the original cmake, written cmake.port.mk, and actually used it to do some actual stuff. Sorry for the flaming, but I'm actually pissed. The impossibility of updating cmake to 2.6 has been kind of a problem I didn't have the time to tackle during the last year, so having a newcomer barge in, blatantly ignore our simple rules (like, actually ASK the maintainer directly why there's no cmake update), and post a very simple totally untested tarball is completely offensive. How about you follow the rules next time, like work on a port that's not maintained, or ASK before providing an update ? (old timers will notice that I'm actually listed as the maintainer of cmake. There are quite a few ports I did for which I did not explicitly take responsability. cmake is NOT ONE OF THOSE. You can figure the rest...) Or get a clue, and figure out that there might be a reason why cmake is so far behind.
