Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 12:52:00 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Gabor Pali <pgj@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, Gabor Kovesdan <gabor@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/devel/hs-alex Makefile Message-ID: <4A297760.8070808@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20090605202313.686a6929@it.buh.tecnik93.com> References: <200906051159.n55BxGPw078489@repoman.freebsd.org> <4A29485C.3060504@FreeBSD.org> <4A29493F.7030004@FreeBSD.org> <20090605202313.686a6929@it.buh.tecnik93.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote: > On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 18:35:11 +0200 > Gabor Kovesdan <gabor@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > >> Doug Barton escribió: >>> Gabor Pali wrote: >>> >>>> pgj 2009-06-05 11:59:16 UTC >>>> >>>> FreeBSD ports repository >>>> >>>> Modified files: >>>> devel/hs-alex Makefile >>>> Log: >>>> - Respect custom PREFIX, LOCALBASE >>>> - Bump port revision >>>> >>>> Reported by: QAT >>>> Approved by: gabor (mentor) >>>> >>>> Revision Changes Path >>>> 1.27 +7 -0 ports/devel/hs-alex/Makefile >>>> >>>> http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/devel/hs-alex/Makefile.diff?&r1=1.26&r2=1.27&f=h >>>> >>>> >>> I can't see any reason for a PORTREVISION bump here. Kudos for >>> fixing this issue, but if we do bumps for every time nothing but >>> this is fixed our users are going to be doing a lot of needless >>> recompiles for no benefit. >>> >> As approver, I also thought about this but some people might use a >> different PREFIX/LOCALBASE configuration constantly and in this case >> a rebuild is necessary to get this port installed correctly. I don't >> think using custom PREFIX/LOCALBASE is widespread but theoretically >> it is possible that there are such people. > > The bump was not needed here since the port didn't build at all with > custom LOCALBASE/PREFIX. Since it didn't build it couldn't have been > installed or packaged, so no need to bump. > > In the general case I think we should bump PORTREVISION when fixing > something, even for non-default configurations since there's no other > way for a user to know to upgrade. Some disagree. That would be me. :) As much as I dislike it personally (because we don't have a better mechanism) I think that there is general agreement that rule number one is that if a delta changes the package, PORTREVISION should be bumped. IMO rule number two should be that if a delta changes something for a user who already has the thing installed, and therefore it is worth the time/energy spent to recompile it, then there should be a bump. Other than that, my vote is no. In any case, it would be good for there to be clear guidance regarding the specific issue of LOCALBASE/PREFIX changes since with any kind of luck we have a lot of them coming up. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4A297760.8070808>