Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:35:26 -0500 From: Sahil Tandon <sahil@FreeBSD.org> To: araujo@FreeBSD.org Cc: cvs-ports@freebsd.org, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/net/trafshow Makefile distinfo Message-ID: <20110301013525.GA44112@magic.hamla.org> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=Bok1He-1Ft-_yic6zLajnWPqB06meDBfSmZJw@mail.gmail.com> References: <201102271441.p1REfMrT016669@repoman.freebsd.org> <20110227193203.GA38353@magic.hamla.org> <4D6AB7BD.2060203@FreeBSD.org> <AANLkTi=Bok1He-1Ft-_yic6zLajnWPqB06meDBfSmZJw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 01:18:32 -0300, Marcelo Araujo wrote: > > On 02/27/2011 11:32, Sahil Tandon wrote: > > > > If the IPv6 option is off by default (and thus, does not affect the > > default package), why do you bump PORTREVISION? I just want to > > understand for my own edification when dealing with similar > > situations. > > Well, I've used the latest paragraph that discribe when we should bump > PORTREVISION. > > """A rule of thumb is to ask yourself whether a change committed to a > port is something which someone, somewhere, would benefit from having > (either because of an enhancement, fix, or by virtue that the new > package will actually work for them). If yes, the PORTREVISION should > be bumped so that automated tools (e.g. pkg_version) will highlight > the fact that a new package is available.""" > > As the IPv6 option can be a good enhancement for trafshow, I decided > to BUMP PORTREVISION. I believe in this case it is OK. If not, please > someone else correct me. Thanks for your response. I do not mean to nag, but I am still not 100% clear. The quote above ends with "highlight the fact that a new package is available". Because IPV6 is off by default, no new package is actually available -- the default package remains functionally unchanged. I agree that IPV6 is a good enhancement, but if that itself (regardless of whether it changes the package) warrants a PORTREVISION bump, perhaps we can clarify the language in the Porter's Handbook. If the language is clear as-is, and it is just my failure to correctly interpret it, then let me know. > I'm gonna checking how the other ports dealing with IPv6 support, then > I'm gonna check if it stay like now or put it by default ON. If there is a new option that is enabled by default, then I think we all agree to increment PORTREVISION. -- Sahil Tandon <sahil@FreeBSD.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110301013525.GA44112>