From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 28 15:21:47 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC5CF106566C for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:21:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scheidell@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mx2.secnap.com.ionspam.net (mx2.secnap.com.ionspam.net [216.134.223.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCED38FC14 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:21:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx2.secnap.com.ionspam.net (unknown [10.71.0.54]) by mx2.secnap.com.ionspam.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 610F1D23C15 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 11:21:47 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: SpammerTrap(r) VPS-1500 2.18 at mx2.secnap.com.ionspam.net Received: from USBCTDC001.secnap.com (unknown [10.70.1.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx2.secnap.com.ionspam.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DBB2D23C01 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 11:21:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MikeBook-Air.local (10.80.0.4) by USBCTDC001.secnap.com (10.70.1.1) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.0.722.0; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 11:21:45 -0400 Message-ID: <4F732C89.3040804@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 11:21:45 -0400 From: Michael Scheidell Organization: SECNAP Network Security Corp User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.2.20) Gecko/20110804 Thunderbird/3.1.12 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: FAQ on PORTREVISION bump? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:21:48 -0000 Looking for an FAQ on PORTREVISION bumps on commits, pr's. Basically, I make the decision based on 'hey, if I was running a cronjob to do a portupgrade -Rr every night, would I want this to be upgraded'? I know if something is broken across all builds, it doesn't need a portrevision bump. If portversion is bumped, portrevision needs to be reset to 0 (line deleted from Makefile) pkg-plist changed (except for tweaks for portdocs/portexamples) options change? I would think so, I see 'make config' called sometimes on portrevision bump, so I assume if I change the defaults, or add an option that changes build, I should bump it. What about things like removing a run_depends that isn't nessessary? ie: build_depends= This \ That \ TheOther run_depends+= $build_depends but, in reality, you only need 'that' to run. build_depends= This \ That \ TheOther run_depends = that Would the average OP want to rebuild the package just to eliminate the extra run depends? I am thinking, not. why bother? make deinstall/reinstall via portupgrade or portmanager won't really do anything make package/ pkg_delete/ pkg_add won't do anything. So, is there a definitive list? -- Michael Scheidell, CTO >*| * SECNAP Network Security Corporation d: +1.561.948.2259 w: http://people.freebsd.org/~scheidell