From owner-svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jul 16 12:43:26 2014
Return-Path: <owner-svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033)
 id B205E140; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 12:43:26 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 12:43:26 +0000
From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>
To: Vsevolod Stakhov <vsevolod@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: svn commit: r361646 - in head/net/samba36: . files
Message-ID: <20140716124326.GA26506@FreeBSD.org>
References: <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> <53C66C3B.1000905@FreeBSD.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <53C66C3B.1000905@FreeBSD.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Cc: svn-ports-head <svn-ports-head@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>
X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree <svn-ports-all.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/svn-ports-all>,
 <mailto:svn-ports-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-ports-all/>
List-Post: <mailto:svn-ports-all@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:svn-ports-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-ports-all>,
 <mailto:svn-ports-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 12:43:26 -0000

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 01:12:43PM +0100, Vsevolod Stakhov wrote:
> 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.

About the "different packages with the same version" -- but aren't you
trying to come up with more fine-grained criteria for pkg to understand
if it's time to upgrade, not just look at version/revision/epoch?  (Or
perhaps I'm just understanding "same version" wrongly in this context.)

> 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

I would say that pkg(8) cannot rely on svn (and that's natural), but we
can insert last change rev into +MANIFEST when generating it, no?  So
it will just become another field akin to version and revision.

> likely important and what fields are just meaningless. I'd like to
> remind that my current set is the following:
> 
> *  maintainer
> *  www
> *  message
> *  comment

I agree with Michael here; these four fields IMHO should be dropped from
consideration (irregardless of if svn rev can/will be embedded or not).

./danfe

P.S.  About that +MANIFEST file: can we please please please make it
human readable?  Like, break the lines, use indentation, etc.  Maybe it
is more appropriate to keep +COMPACT_MANIFEST as one-liner, although I
am not convinced that separate +COMPACT_MANIFEST should exist at all.