From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 26 18:41:03 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59C72106566B; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:41:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from smtp8.server.rpi.edu (smtp8.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.228]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1981B8FC13; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:41:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp8.server.rpi.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n2QIf0MR009401; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:41:01 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1238056641.50303.6.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> References: <200903120954.n2C9s2ev063133@repoman.freebsd.org> <20090313023956.GA49511@dragon.NUXI.org> <49BA52D2.8090209@FreeBSD.org> <20090323231412.GA94221@hub.freebsd.org> <20090324012325.GB1292@atarininja.org> <20090324043028.GA34952@dragon.NUXI.org> <1238056641.50303.6.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:40:59 -0400 To: pav@FreeBSD.org From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0) X-RPI-SA-Score: 0.00 () [Hold at 20.00] 22490(-25) X-CanItPRO-Stream: outgoing X-Canit-Stats-ID: Bayes signature not available X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 128.113.2.228 Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/shells/bash Makefile pkg-plist X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:41:04 -0000 At 9:37 AM +0100 3/26/09, Pav Lucistnik wrote: >Garance A Drosihn p=ED=94e v st 25. 03. 2009 v 18:18 -0400: > >> >That is the only case I can think of. Even changing the comment or >> >pkg-descr should have its PORTREVISION bumped in order to get a new >> >package built so users have the fresh description. >> >> Ew, I don't like that at all. Why should I rebuild (say) bash just >> because someone fixes a typo in the description? The port is already >> installed, and I have no intention of reading the description until >> *maybe* the next time the package really does change. >> >> It's probably not that big a deal for bash, which is fairly easy to >> build and well-behaved. Now let's change the pkg-descr for some key >> component of Gnome, and have people spend a day to rebuild it and >> everything that depends on it, just because a description changed? > >Certainly not everything that depends on it. You have a good overview >of how ports work? Oh, right, this wouldn't be the kind of change which would trigger rebuilds of other components, even if the change was to some kind of library. I was just thinking of some changes where I only had one port which was really out-of-date, but updating that component triggered rebuilds of many other ports. Well, still, why rebuild *anything* because pkg-desc changed? -- Garance Alistair Drosehn =3D gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu