Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 10:27:04 -0500 From: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> To: Matthew Seaman <matthew@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, Vsevolod Stakhov <vsevolod@freebsd.org>, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de>, Tijl Coosemans <tijl@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r364287 - head/ports-mgmt/pkg-devel Message-ID: <2b62be838237da061c474c2974cc6996@shatow.net> In-Reply-To: <53E88B33.8000109@freebsd.org> References: <53e39939.55bc.4ca5432c@svn.freebsd.org> <20140807172841.58633e63@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> <53E3A468.5050603@FreeBSD.org> <53E3AC0C.5020904@gmx.de> <53E3AD09.2050000@FreeBSD.org> <53E3B3B5.9000104@gmx.de> <53E3B6D8.9080101@FreeBSD.org> <53E590AC.4020105@FreeBSD.org> <53E7A512.8050008@FreeBSD.org> <b1c74ebef13a04a7198ed4a34134d63a@shatow.net> <53E7D193.3090305@FreeBSD.org> <53E7F110.7010105@FreeBSD.org> <53E87E4B.5090600@FreeBSD.org> <53E88B33.8000109@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2014-08-11 04:21, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 08/11/14 09:26, Vsevolod Stakhov wrote: >> I agree with this. But we need to define the policy of significant >> fields thus. The pull request I've mentioned previously changes this >> policy. But I still have no sane comments about it from the ports >> developers... >> >> https://github.com/freebsd/pkg/pull/911 I will test this. > > As I see it, if there's a change to any of the fields that go towards > creating the package digest, then we're requiring all the users to > update that package. This should be avoided for trivial changes. > > So, switching the question round: what fields in the manifest should > *not* imply reinstalling the package? > > - comment > - description > - categories (these don't have much effect for binary packages) > - www > - maintainer (hmmm... not sure. We wouldn't want to have former > maintainers still being pestered about their old > ports.) I would like to move all of this to a different mechanism. It is a lot of BW overhead to download a new package only because a maintainer changes, and then to also reinstall all files. I don't think we have smart upgrades yet where only changed files are extracted (#735). It also adds a lot of strain to the package building infrastructure to be bumping revision for any of those fields. Yes it is the "proper" thing, but it is not reasonable given all of the overhead. Generally those things should be bunched up into other significant changes right now. > - annotations > > Anything that relates to the actual package contents -- so changes to > the list of files and their checksums (assuming we have reproducible > builds? I can't remember if we do or not), changes to scripts, > dependencies, required shlibs, etc. definitely is a cause for a > reinstall of a package. (Although shlib changes would necessarily mean > changes to file checksums. Arch, flat size too). Similarly changes to > licenses. > > Package name and origin together are the unique identifier, so should > remain constant -- or else it's going to be treated as a different > package[*]. Curiously though, while the package version should change > with any update to the package content, just changing the version > number > on alone probably isn't cause for reinstalling the package. > > Cheers, > > Matthew > > [*] Maybe we should be tracking old name / origin data (ie. relevant > bits of /usr/ports/MOVED) within package metadata? -- Regards, Bryan Drewery
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2b62be838237da061c474c2974cc6996>