Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:03:24 -0400 From: Wesley Shields <wxs@atarininja.org> To: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> Cc: Bob Eager <rde@tavi.co.uk>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Which to bump for distfile location change? Message-ID: <20110726210324.GA18262@atarininja.org> In-Reply-To: <CADLo83_cCiPsCd1Tgo82naO1UfkynYgxZ0yY51soW_v-rJpiRA@mail.gmail.com> References: <20110726204737.534ab5f5@raksha.tavi.co.uk> <CADLo83_cCiPsCd1Tgo82naO1UfkynYgxZ0yY51soW_v-rJpiRA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 09:08:13PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote: > On 26 Jul 2011 20:47, "Bob Eager" <rde@tavi.co.uk> wrote: > > > > Following a recent post to this list, I need to update a port, just to > > change a distfile location. > > > > It seems excessive to bump PORTREVISION, so what is the best thing to > > change (if any). > > > > No default package change, no portrevision bump. Leave it as is. Chris is right but I don't want to give people the impression that is the only time to bump PORTREVISION. While the "default package change" rule of thumb is always a good one there is more to it than just that when deciding to bump PORTREVISION or not. Here's the rough questions I go through in my head when I'm facing this kind of decision: If the default package changes, bump it. Only caveat here is if it's a minor change (say a typo in a man page or something). If it's chasing a shlib bump of another port and this port defaults to off, bump it anyways as some people may be bit by this. If it's a change to an option that defaults to off, and one can expect a reasonable number of people to benefit from it, bump it. I'm sure there are others and I'm sure some people will disagree with some of these. But those are the rough guidelines I follow. -- WXS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110726210324.GA18262>