ImageMagick bump

[Kris Kennaway]

On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 03:01:03PM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 02:55:23PM -0400, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-05-05 at 14:51 -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 02:32:42PM -0400, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2007-05-05 at 14:31 -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 02:29:03PM -0400, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, 2007-05-05 at 13:00 -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > > > > > > It looks like ImageMagick depends on fontconfig but didnt get bumped,
> > > > > > > can you confirm?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Also I wonder about ports that have optional dependencies on
> > > > > > > fontconfig, we should probably bump them too to be safe (otherwise
> > > > > > > people will have stale references to /usr/X11R6 in .la files again)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Actually, ImageMagick should have been bumped, but was not.  There are
> > > > > > only two ports by my count that have fontconfig as an optional disabled
> > > > > > dependency.  I will recheck my script to see why some ports were not
> > > > > > bumped.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > 
> > > > I found the problem.  My script didn't take DISTVERSION into account.  I
> > > > will send out a new, complete tarball shortly.
> > > 
> > > Maybe a diff against previous bumpage would be better, if
> > > possible...flz?
> > 
> > That would be very hard to generate at this point.  I mean, it would be
> > trivial if I was allowed to re-bump the ports that had already been
> > bumped.  Otherwise I'd have to manually fiddle with my list.
> 
> OK, I guess flz will just have to cope :)

Actually you could create a diff by producing two trees: one with your
previous patch applied and one with your rerun of the bump script.  Or
flz could.

Kris