[129391] trunk/dports/perl/p5-cgi-speedycgi/Portfile

[Ryan Schmidt]

> On Dec 12, 2014, at 8:49 AM, mojca at macports.org wrote:
> 
> Revision
> 129391
> Author
> mojca at macports.org
> Date
> 2014-12-12 06:49:41 -0800 (Fri, 12 Dec 2014)
> Log Message
> 
> p5-cgi-speedycgi: add p5.18 5.20 to an otherwise broken port (#33479)
> Modified Paths
> 
> 	• trunk/dports/perl/p5-cgi-speedycgi/Portfile
> Diff
> 
> Modified: trunk/dports/perl/p5-cgi-speedycgi/Portfile (129390 => 129391)
> 
> --- trunk/dports/perl/p5-cgi-speedycgi/Portfile	2014-12-12 14:44:36 UTC (rev 129390)
> +++ trunk/dports/perl/p5-cgi-speedycgi/Portfile	2014-12-12 14:49:41 UTC (rev 129391)
> 
> @@ -1,10 +1,13 @@
>  # -*- coding: utf-8; mode: tcl; tab-width: 4; indent-tabs-mode: nil; c-basic-offset: 4 -*- vim:fenc=utf-8:ft=tcl:et:sw=4:ts=4:sts=4
>  # $Id$
>  
> +# Port is broken:
> +# - http://trac.macports.org/ticket/33479
> +
>  PortSystem          1.0
>  PortGroup           perl5 1.0
>  
> -perl5.branches      5.10 5.12 5.14 5.16
> +perl5.branches      5.10 5.12 5.14 5.16 5.18 5.20



I don't understand this change. If we're adding perl branches without testing that they work, then let's just do that for all the remaining perl module ports all at once, as was suggested in months past. I had wanted to avoid that, because I like our standing policy of verifying that a port builds before committing a change. If we're not going to do that here, then there's no reason to do each port separately.