From owner-svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 16 12:12:45 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8DD1F3A; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 12:12:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from h.highsecure.ru (mail6.highsecure.ru [IPv6:2a01:4f8:191:22a6::99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9320220F2; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 12:12:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from medway.cl.cam.ac.uk (medway.cl.cam.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:212:238:21c:c0ff:fe4b:2b85]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: vsevolod@highsecure.ru) by h.highsecure.ru (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BC3C930050F; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:11:25 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <53C66C3B.1000905@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:12:43 +0100 From: Vsevolod Stakhov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexey Dokuchaev Subject: Re: svn commit: r361646 - in head/net/samba36: . files References: <53C451FA.2020304@marino.st> <20140715170501.GA73101@FreeBSD.org> <53C5618F.2020104@FreeBSD.org> <20140716094453.GA53961@FreeBSD.org> <53C65677.8060603@FreeBSD.org> <20140716111328.GB82901@FreeBSD.org> <53C6638E.6000801@FreeBSD.org> <20140716115304.GA5861@FreeBSD.org> <53C668C9.9030209@FreeBSD.org> <20140716120705.GA14729@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20140716120705.GA14729@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: svn-ports-head , "Timur I. Bakeyev" , Steve Wills , svn-ports-all , marino@freebsd.org, "ports-committers@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 12:12:45 -0000 On 16/07/14 13:07, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 12:58:01PM +0100, Vsevolod Stakhov wrote: >> Again, I have no objections about licenses/comments/whatever. I want >> actually merely to figure out, which manifest's fields are >> *significant*. At this point, I can easily change this list without >> insulting users. On the contrary, after 1.3 release that would be hard. > > Understood; sounds certainly reasonable. > >> I suggest thus to stop bikescheding and switch to constructive >> discussion and define how should we distinguish one package from >> another. And no, we *cannot* rely on port version/revision/epoch only! > > One thing that comes to mind is svn info /usr/ports/foo/bar | grep Last > Changed Rev. Then port (portupgrade) users won't get upset by countless > portrevs, and pkg will be able to rebuild (redistribute) a package even > if maintainer forgot to bump portrev (esp. for an important update). Then we would have different packages with the same version. And pkg will not perform an upgrade. Nontheless, in the current scheme, we take unnecessary fields, such as licenses or comments, into consideration. Moreover, manifest cannot rely on svn, so if you take a look on some manifest generated from a port you could figure out what fields are likely important and what fields are just meaningless. I'd like to remind that my current set is the following: * name * origin * version * arch * maintainer * www * message * comment * options And I think it is far from being perfect. -- Vsevolod Stakhov