search for: r172208

...ple, especially for an extremely minor thing like an empty directory. > > > > I'm not sure if Pawel's tarball change should be reverted now as it already caused uproar, so changing it back might only make matters worse. > > > > The tarballs were changed? > > r172208 I finally updated the FreeBSD ports yesterday and today a user complained about distfile changes. IMO, this revision should be reverted or all the other BSDs will have to chase checksums as well. If you really want to remove the directory, ship a 3.2.1 tarball rather than screwing all the downst...

...will break things for many people, especially for an extremely minor thing like an empty directory. > > I'm not sure if Pawel's tarball change should be reverted now as it already caused uproar, so changing it back might only make matters worse. > > The tarballs were changed? r172208 - Ben

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at gmail.com>wrote: > > On 11.01.2013, at 07:36, 陳韋任 (Wei-Ren Chen) <chenwj at iis.sinica.edu.tw> > wrote: > > > Hi Pawel, > > > > PTX already be replaced with NVPTX. However, PTX subdirectory > > still sit in lib/Target in 3.2 release. Do you think update the > > release tarball is

...e an empty directory. >>> >>> I'm not sure if Pawel's tarball change should be reverted now >>> as it already caused uproar, so changing it back might only >>> make matters worse. >>> >>> The tarballs were changed? >> >> r172208 > > I finally updated the FreeBSD ports yesterday and today a user > complained about distfile changes. IMO, this revision should be > reverted or all the other BSDs will have to chase checksums as > well. > > If you really want to remove the directory, ship a 3.2.1 tarba...

...> > >>> I'm not sure if Pawel's tarball change should be reverted now > >>> as it already caused uproar, so changing it back might only > >>> make matters worse. > >>> > >>> The tarballs were changed? > >> > >> r172208 > > > > I finally updated the FreeBSD ports yesterday and today a user > > complained about distfile changes. IMO, this revision should be > > reverted or all the other BSDs will have to chase checksums as > > well. > > > > If you really want to remove the...

...> >>> I'm not sure if Pawel's tarball change should be reverted now > >>> as it already caused uproar, so changing it back might only > >>> make matters worse. > >>> > >>> The tarballs were changed? > >> > >> r172208 > > > > I finally updated the FreeBSD ports yesterday and today a user > > complained about distfile changes. IMO, this revision should be > > reverted or all the other BSDs will have to chase checksums as > > well. > > > > If you really want to remov...

...t; I'm not sure if Pawel's tarball change should be reverted >>>>> now as it already caused uproar, so changing it back might >>>>> only make matters worse. >>>>> >>>>> The tarballs were changed? >>>> >>>> r172208 >>> >>> I finally updated the FreeBSD ports yesterday and today a user >>> complained about distfile changes. IMO, this revision should >>> be reverted or all the other BSDs will have to chase checksums >>> as well. >>> >>> If you r...

...Pawel's tarball change should be reverted now >>>>>> as it already caused uproar, so changing it back might only >>>>>> make matters worse. >>>>>> >>>>>> The tarballs were changed? >>>>> >>>>> r172208 >>>> >>>> I finally updated the FreeBSD ports yesterday and today a user >>>> complained about distfile changes. IMO, this revision should be >>>> reverted or all the other BSDs will have to chase checksums as >>>> well. >>>>...

...> I'm not sure if Pawel's tarball change should be reverted now >>>>> as it already caused uproar, so changing it back might only >>>>> make matters worse. >>>>> >>>>> The tarballs were changed? >>>> >>>> r172208 >>> >>> I finally updated the FreeBSD ports yesterday and today a user >>> complained about distfile changes. IMO, this revision should be >>> reverted or all the other BSDs will have to chase checksums as >>> well. >>> >>> If you real...

...t; I'm not sure if Pawel's tarball change should be reverted >>>>> now as it already caused uproar, so changing it back might >>>>> only make matters worse. >>>>> >>>>> The tarballs were changed? >>>> >>>> r172208 >>> >>> I finally updated the FreeBSD ports yesterday and today a user >>> complained about distfile changes. IMO, this revision should >>> be reverted or all the other BSDs will have to chase checksums >>> as well. >>> >>> If you r...

...39;s tarball change should be reverted > >>>>> now as it already caused uproar, so changing it back might > >>>>> only make matters worse. > >>>>> > >>>>> The tarballs were changed? > >>>> > >>>> r172208 > >>> > >>> I finally updated the FreeBSD ports yesterday and today a user > >>> complained about distfile changes. IMO, this revision should > >>> be reverted or all the other BSDs will have to chase checksums > >>> as well. > >&...

...nge should be reverted now >>>>>>> as it already caused uproar, so changing it back might only >>>>>>> make matters worse. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The tarballs were changed? >>>>>> >>>>>> r172208 >>>>> >>>>> I finally updated the FreeBSD ports yesterday and today a user >>>>> complained about distfile changes. IMO, this revision should be >>>>> reverted or all the other BSDs will have to chase checksums as >>>>> wel...

...nge should be reverted >>>>>>> now as it already caused uproar, so changing it back might >>>>>>> only make matters worse. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The tarballs were changed? >>>>>> >>>>>> r172208 >>>>> >>>>> I finally updated the FreeBSD ports yesterday and today a user >>>>> complained about distfile changes. IMO, this revision should >>>>> be reverted or all the other BSDs will have to chase checksums >>>>> as we...

...t;>>>>>> now as it already caused uproar, so changing it back might > >>>>>>> only make matters worse. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The tarballs were changed? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> r172208 > >>>>> > >>>>> I finally updated the FreeBSD ports yesterday and today a user > >>>>> complained about distfile changes. IMO, this revision should > >>>>> be reverted or all the other BSDs will have to chase checksums > &...

...>>>>>>>> as it already caused uproar, so changing it back might only >>>>>>>> make matters worse. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The tarballs were changed? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> r172208 >>>>>> >>>>>> I finally updated the FreeBSD ports yesterday and today a user >>>>>> complained about distfile changes. IMO, this revision should be >>>>>> reverted or all the other BSDs will have to chase checksums as >&gt...