Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 07:48:17 +0200 From: Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, Tom Rhodes <trhodes@freebsd.org>, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, bdrewery@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r319792 - head/sysutils/fsc Message-ID: <CAF6rxgnn_nE2aW1kitLpA2fE9zRSvQCFnD8qqUei88MxLmB9-g@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20130604053622.GA94820@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> References: <201306031632.r53GWPdP069628@svn.freebsd.org> <51ACC994.4060608@FreeBSD.org> <20130603133012.114c2ae7.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> <51ACDC95.4060600@FreeBSD.org> <20130603155106.7f3e5826.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> <20130603201831.GO12427@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20130603180413.7fbe7366.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> <20130604053622.GA94820@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 4 June 2013 07:36, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 06:04:13PM -0400, Tom Rhodes wrote: >> On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 22:18:31 +0200 >> Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 03:51:06PM -0400, Tom Rhodes wrote: >> > > On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 13:12:37 -0500 >> > > Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >> > > >> > > > On 6/3/2013 12:30 PM, Tom Rhodes wrote: >> > > > > On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 11:51:32 -0500 >> > > > > Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > >> This is bad form. If you are changing upstream code it should be a new >> > > > >> release version, not a reroll. We frequently have problems with other >> > > > >> upstreams doing this and should follow our own guidelines. >> > > > > >> > > > > I'm not bumping the version used for a simple gcc->clang warning >> > > > > fix. That's why I just bumped PORTVERSION. If we want to do a >> > > > > new version, I'll get ahold of the NetBSD people, who also work >> > > > > with keeping a port, and discuss doing that. In this case, it >> > > > > was a simple fix rather than adding a 2 line patch to a files/ >> > > > > directory. >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > The proper way to do is this a new release, or a patch in files with a >> > > > PORTREVISION, or a sed in post-patch. This is the convention. Rerolling >> > > > upstream is a big no no. Rerolling is obscure and very frowned upon. >> > > > This also impacts NetBSD if they are tracking checksums, and any other >> > > > projects depending on the checksum of the upstream tarball. >> > > >> > > I'll look at bumping the release version - there are some other >> > > changes that need made anyway, I just wanted to fix the build so >> > > users could build it again. >> > >> > In that case a patch in files/ is the way to go. >> >> I think the changes are a version bump - I'm working with some >> NetBSD people on this, so I'll discuss with them. >> > > This right statement should have been to not reroll the distfile but rather to > put a patch in files/ and bump portrevision. Or, if possible, wait for upstream to release a new version. -- Eitan Adler Source, Ports, Doc committer Bugmeister, Ports Security teams
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAF6rxgnn_nE2aW1kitLpA2fE9zRSvQCFnD8qqUei88MxLmB9-g>