Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 09:38:41 +0300 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@FreeBSD.org> To: Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> Cc: "Philip M. Gollucci" <pgollucci@p6m7g8.com>, cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/x11-toolkits/linux-f8-openmotif Makefile pkg-plist Message-ID: <20090517093841.0e6e20f7@it.buh.tecnik93.com> In-Reply-To: <56850116@bb.ipt.ru> References: <200905121614.n4CGEiv0012670@repoman.freebsd.org> <4A09AA55.8080108@p6m7g8.com> <03260409@bb.ipt.ru> <20090513003531.29453ee6@it.buh.tecnik93.com> <56850116@bb.ipt.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Sig_/BH3SqTDva9FD3x_HYeb5/Uc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, 13 May 2009 09:12:27 +0400
Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 00:35:31 +0300 Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 May 2009 21:28:06 +0400
> > Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> wrote:
>=20
> > > On Tue, 12 May 2009 12:56:53 -0400 Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> > > > Boris Samorodov wrote:
> > >=20
> > > > > No PORTREVISION bump is needed.
> > > > > | -BUILD_DEPENDS=3D rpm2cpio:${PORTSDIR}/archivers/rpm
> > > > >
> > > > I thought you always had to BUMP PORTREVISION when changing
> > > > DEPENDS since you directly affect the resultant package ? Can
> > > > you enlighten me ?
> > >=20
> > > Two arguments:
> > > . the package for this port is never built;
>=20
> > In general, this argument is is wrong, as one can use
> > FORCE_PACKAGES to build them locally.
>=20
> I was talking about oficial packages.
Let's be consistent. Just because a port is marked NO_PACKAGE it
doesn't mean IMO we shouldn't bump PORTREVISION if we'd do this if the
port wouldn't be marked NO_PACKAGE.
> As for custom packages I'm not sure if we should bump PORTREVISION
> when any custom package may be affected by a commit.
- IMO yes.
- PH is a little vague
- current practice seems to be no
> Should a PORTREVISION be bumped if non-defaults (say, OPTIONS) are
> changed?
New PKGVERSION triggers a port rebuild on the cluster and lets both
ports and packages users know something changed.
- If changing OPTIONS changes dependencies in the default config then
it's obvious you need to bump.
- If you flip the default state of an OPTION the you need to bump as the
resulting package will be different irrespective of depends/plist
changes or not.
- If you add an OPTION that defaults to on then you need to bump, if the
default package will be in any way different that it was. If it
defaults to off it's debatable.
The only ting that let the users know something changed is a new
PKGVERSION. If only because of this I'd advocate for bumping.
> > > . this dependency still (indirectly) exists since this port
> > > depends upon linux_base-f8 which depends upon archivers/rpm.
>=20
> > So the make describe output is the same?
>=20
> Strictly speaking, no: archivers/rpm moved from build_depends
> to extract_depends. But that doesn't affect a package using.
>=20
> Those two arguments in conjunction convinced me not to bump
> PORTREVISION.
Yes, in this case it wasn't needed.
--=20
IOnut - Un^d^dregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"
"Intellectual Property" is nowhere near as valuable as "Intellect"
FreeBSD committer -> itetcu@FreeBSD.org, PGP Key ID 057E9F8B493A297B
--Sig_/BH3SqTDva9FD3x_HYeb5/Uc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (FreeBSD)
iEYEARECAAYFAkoPsPIACgkQJ7GIuiH/oeVZGwCglR/QUMVc8IXTmuYVQw51OeuI
y2IAn2eb78DYDHK62af6KdmvBW7bcTr9
=bpRG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Sig_/BH3SqTDva9FD3x_HYeb5/Uc--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090517093841.0e6e20f7>