mail/bincimap: Fix build with Clang 6.0.0
ClosedPublic
Actions

Authored by loader on Aug 10 2018, 1:02 PM.

Details

Reviewers

koobs

Commits

Summary

Proposed commit log message:

mail/bincimap: Fix build with Clang 6.0.0

Reviewed_by: koobs
Approved by: koobs (mentor)
MFH: 2018Q3
Differential_Revision: D16658

Test Plan

Repository

rP FreeBSD ports repository

Lint

Lint Not Applicable

Unit

Tests Not Applicable

Merge security updates and all non-version updates to the quarterly branch when/where possible. I've added MFH to the proposed commit log message

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Aug 10 2018, 10:28 PM

Sure, thanks @koobs. :-)

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.

head/mail/bincimap/Makefile
6	Why bump PORTREVISION?

head/mail/bincimap/Makefile
6	Sorry, I'm confused, should I bump up PORTREVISION for build fixes that don't introduce new functionality/behavior change in the generated package? https://reviews.freebsd.org/D15532#327972

head/mail/bincimap/files/patch-src_greeting.cc
14	Shouldn't it be `"v" VERSION " "`, with another space added after `VERSION`?

head/mail/bincimap/Makefile
6	You bump `PORTREVISION` when there is a package with the same version and the change you introduces changes the new package, so that tools know the package needs to be rebuilt. It is explained at length in [[ https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/makefile-naming.html#makefile-portrevision \| 5.2.3.1. `PORTREVISION` ]]. Here, it was not building before, so there was no previous package. Also, for compilers where it was not an error, the change you introduced will not change the compiled file, it is whitespace only. In the review you quote, I asked a question, on wether or not it was needed, because the changes seemed non trivial, and might change the resulting package. You did not answered the question, you simply bumped PORTREVISION, so I assumed it was needed after all and took it no further. Language is a very precise tool, if I had said "you need to bump PORTREVISION" then, yes, doing it was right. in the quoted review, I asked if it was needed, so that we'have a discussion, in which you could have told me either "no, it the generated package does not change" or "ah, yes, the package changes".