From owner-svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jun 19 06:52:35 2013
Return-Path: <owner-svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033)
 id 5CDBFC36; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 06:52:35 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 06:52:35 +0000
From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>
To: d@delphij.net
Subject: Re: svn commit: r321227 - in head/net/iet: . files
Message-ID: <20130619065235.GB72668@FreeBSD.org>
References: <201306190224.r5J2OlM0017324@svn.freebsd.org>
 <20130619062325.GE61109@FreeBSD.org> <51C15310.5040900@delphij.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <51C15310.5040900@delphij.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org,
 Xin LI <delphij@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org
X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head
 <svn-ports-head.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/svn-ports-head>,
 <mailto:svn-ports-head-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-ports-head>
List-Post: <mailto:svn-ports-head@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:svn-ports-head-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-ports-head>,
 <mailto:svn-ports-head-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 06:52:35 -0000

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 02:43:28AM -0400, Xin Li wrote:
> On 06/19/13 02:23, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 02:24:47AM +0000, Xin LI wrote:
> >> New Revision: 321227 URL:
> >> http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/321227
> >> 
> >> Log: Unbreak on recent -CURRENT.
> >> 
> >> @@ -1,13 +1,9 @@ [...] PORTNAME=	iet PORTVERSION=	1.4.20.2 
> >> -PORTREVISION=	5 +PORTREVISION=	6
> > 
> > I don't see why PORTREVISION was bumped for a build fix.  Or the
> > package could be built, but was somehow bad?
> 
> The port was broken for -CURRENT, but patch is applied against source
> regardless of FreeBSD version, which was not broken on other platforms
> (and the resulting binary may change due to this, depending on
> compiler used).
> 
> I think PORTREVISION should always be bumped when a change could touch
> any files inside the binary package, no?

Not really, given that this change would probably go unnoticed by the user,
and does not change anything on package level.  Merely the fact of shuffling
the bits inside it does not warrant a port revision bump.  Imagine those
users who had it installed already and were happy with it, and now they are
forced to rebuild it for no real reason.

./danfe