On 27 Mar 2012, at 09:09, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > On Mar 22, 2012, at 19:06, Markus W. Weißmann wrote: > >> On 22 Mar 2012, at 23:53, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> >>> ... >> >>> Therefore, the epoch needs to be increased. >>> >>> Since increasing only the epoch is problematic for various reasons, >>> increase the revision as well when you do this. >> >> When the field "maintainer" includes the keyword "openmaintainer", you are >> explicitely allowed to fix this kind of problem right away. [1] >> >> [1] https://trac.macports.org/wiki/SpecialMaintainerAddresses > > I know you know I know I'm allowed to do that, but it should have been done > by you as part of r91032. I mention it because this has been an issue every > previous time you've updated a gcc port from its development series to its > first final release. I've now made the change as part of r91245. >
Thanks Ryan! :) _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
