Not suggesting my opinion counts on this, but when I first sent in this port (years ago), I was told to use CPAN releases only. Then somewhat recently (maybe a year or so ago), I was told go with latest version even if not on CPAN (i.e. author's releases).
Maybe there should be an official guideline stating OBSD's preferred position on this. -pk On 3/13/18, Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org> wrote: > On 2018/03/13 12:20, George Rosamond wrote: >> Giovanni Bechis: >> > On 03/02/18 17:02, George Rosamond wrote: >> >> Giovanni Bechis: >> >>> On 03/02/18 16:31, George Rosamond wrote: >> >>>> Attached is exiftool-10.82: >> >>>> >> >>> Hi, exiftool lives in graphics/p5-Image-ExifTool, >> >>> if you want to update it, you are welcome. >> >>> Thanks >> >>> Giovanni >> >> >> >> Thanks Giovanni, was confused since it's both a Perl module and a >> >> stand-alone application. >> >> >> >> CC'g MAINTAINER. >> >> >> >> Diff updating to 10.82 attached. >> >> >> >> Changes: >> >> >> >> distinfo >> >> version bump in Makefile >> >> wrapped pkg/DESCR at 80 characters >> >> a few PLIST additions >> >> >> >> g >> >> >> > There is no 10.82 version on Cpan, I would rather update to 10.80 >> > instead. >> > ok ? >> >> Yes, in cpan it's 10.80. >> >> FWIW, the port's Makefile is using the author's www and distfile, which >> just bumped to 10.84 yesterday. My diff was based on the author's www. >> >> If it's going to stick with the cpan version, should it also use cpan >> for the distfile? > > "Note: The most recent production release is Version 10.80. > (Other versions are considered development releases, and are > not uploaded to CPAN.)" > > 10.80 is the right version to use. I think MASTER_SITES is ok like it is > (using cpan with author's site as a second option). > >
