Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 18:52:06 +0400 From: Boris Samorodov <bsam@passap.ru> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-ports-head <svn-ports-head@freebsd.org>, Vsevolod Stakhov <vsevolod@FreeBSD.org>, "Timur I. Bakeyev" <timur@FreeBSD.org>, Steve Wills <swills@freebsd.org>, svn-ports-all <svn-ports-all@freebsd.org>, marino@freebsd.org, "ports-committers@freebsd.org" <ports-committers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r361646 - in head/net/samba36: . files Message-ID: <53C69196.8070103@passap.ru> In-Reply-To: <20140716141214.GA64875@FreeBSD.org> References: <53C322A7.2090705@marino.st> <20140714003112.GA54756@mouf.net> <CALdFvJEvf4-RSJNUVxX08T8K-tq9PoKge-XxmhDafAn_QxjEcg@mail.gmail.com> <53C451FA.2020304@marino.st> <20140715170501.GA73101@FreeBSD.org> <53C5618F.2020104@FreeBSD.org> <20140716094453.GA53961@FreeBSD.org> <53C65677.8060603@FreeBSD.org> <20140716111328.GB82901@FreeBSD.org> <53C6846A.4060909@passap.ru> <20140716141214.GA64875@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
16.07.2014 18:12, Alexey Dokuchaev ÐÉÛÅÔ: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 05:55:54PM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote: >> 16.07.2014 15:13, Alexey Dokuchaev пишет: >>> I don't see why it cannot work the old way, just as described in PHB >>> section 5.2.2.1. >> >> The quote: >> ----- >> PORTREVISION should be increased each time a change is made to the port >> that changes the generated package in any way. >> ----- >> >>> That is, bump port revision when something is wrong with previous >>> package. >> >> I'd say you are wrong here: "...changes the generated package in any >> way." > > You conveniently omitted the word "should" in that sentense. That's not > fair play, Boris. I show only the criteria here. The action was at the first qoute. And yes, the action is "should be done". > That section also gives some examples which do not > require a PORTREVISION bump; and a nice summary at the end: > > "A rule of thumb is to ask yourself whether a change committed to a port > is something which everyone would benefit from having (either because of > an enhancement, fix, or by virtue that the new package will actually work > at all), and weigh that against that fact that it will cause everyone who > regularly updates their ports tree to be compelled to update. If yes, the > PORTREVISION should be bumped." I don't read this paragraph as a summary. For me it's a summary for the case "when PORTREVISION bump is not required". Otherwise the quote I give and your quote conflict with each other. >>> Fixed typos or added license do not render previous packages wrong. >>> Ditto for staging, maintainership changes or other things that are not >>> user-noticeable. >> >> "A user noticable" is a vague criteria, while "changes the generated >> package in any way" is strict one. And documented. > > This criterium, while being strict, is also utterly stupid; for the reasons > I've stated earlier in this thread (gratuitous rebuilding of packages when > there's nothing wrong with them modulo some minor typo fix in COMMENT). My main idea is: "We have rules to follow. If we need changes, let's change rules first." -- WBR, Boris Samorodov (bsam) FreeBSD Committer, http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?53C69196.8070103>