libpgf Portfile

[Mihai Moldovan]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 25.12.2014 12:45 AM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> Yess, that was it. It's possible that I hadn't yet added a version number when I portindexed it, and
never repeated the operation because that doesn't appear to be necessary for
version bumps.

Actually, it is. Without running portindex first, the port will not be
recognized as outdated.


> I'm wondering about the port, though. I saw that libpgf appears to be part of something called pgf which
isn't the same thing already present as port:pgf . I hope there's no unwritten
rule that states I should propose a port for the full monty, with libpgf a subport?

If it makes sense, they are related and (optionally) parts of the Portfile can
be re-used, I'd suggest to do so.

It's not really done consistently, though, so not much to worry about.



Mihai
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=Gegp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----