On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:39:10AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2015/09/21 10:31, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> >
> > It's not that we don't trust you.
> > But I think it's the first time I see that softhsm2 would be a totally
> > different port (i.e. security/softhsm2).
> > If that's the case
On 2015/09/21 10:31, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:19:23AM +0200, Patrik Lundin wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 06:06:44PM +0200, Patrik Lundin wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > portroach currently thinks security/softhsm is outdated. The reason for
> > > this is that while
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:19:23AM +0200, Patrik Lundin wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 06:06:44PM +0200, Patrik Lundin wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > portroach currently thinks security/softhsm is outdated. The reason for
> > this is that while the version in ports is 1.3.7, there is a development
>
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 06:06:44PM +0200, Patrik Lundin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> portroach currently thinks security/softhsm is outdated. The reason for
> this is that while the version in ports is 1.3.7, there is a development
> release using a 2.0.0 version number.
>
> The diff below should limit th
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 05:35:54PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2015/08/27 18:17, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 06:06:44PM +0200, Patrik Lundin wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > portroach currently thinks security/softhsm is outdated. The reason for
> > > this is that wh
Hello,
portroach currently thinks security/softhsm is outdated. The reason for
this is that while the version in ports is 1.3.7, there is a development
release using a 2.0.0 version number.
The diff below should limit the version check to the 1.x.x versions.
--
Patrik Lundin
Index: Makefile
==
On 2015/08/27 18:17, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 06:06:44PM +0200, Patrik Lundin wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > portroach currently thinks security/softhsm is outdated. The reason for
> > this is that while the version in ports is 1.3.7, there is a development
> > release using a
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 06:06:44PM +0200, Patrik Lundin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> portroach currently thinks security/softhsm is outdated. The reason for
> this is that while the version in ports is 1.3.7, there is a development
> release using a 2.0.0 version number.
>
> The diff below should limit th