From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Mar 24 10:51:28 2009
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033)
	id 322881065678; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:51:28 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:51:28 +0000
From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>
To: David O'Brien <obrien@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20090324105128.GB47617@FreeBSD.org>
References: <200903120954.n2C9s2ev063133@repoman.freebsd.org>
	<20090313023956.GA49511@dragon.NUXI.org>
	<49BA52D2.8090209@FreeBSD.org>
	<20090323231412.GA94221@hub.freebsd.org>
	<20090324012325.GB1292@atarininja.org>
	<20090324043028.GA34952@dragon.NUXI.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090324043028.GA34952@dragon.NUXI.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, Wesley Shields <wxs@FreeBSD.org>,
	Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org,
	ports-committers@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/shells/bash Makefile pkg-plist
X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree <cvs-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ports>,
	<mailto:cvs-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ports>,
	<mailto:cvs-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:51:29 -0000

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 09:30:28PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 09:23:25PM -0400, Wesley Shields wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:14:13PM +0000, David O'Brien wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 01:34:26PM +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> > > > David O'Brien wrote:
> > > > >There is zero reason to force a reinstall for a PLIST change.
> > > > >Either the port is already installed (and the user can wait for
> > > > >some other reason to update), or the port isn't installed and
> > > > >bumping PORTREVISION does nothing.
> > > > 
> > > > It's needed for package cluster, otherwise it does not know to rebuild 
> > > > and will serve incomplete package forever.
> > > 
> > > Is there ever a change then that doesn't require a bump in either
> > > PORTREVISION or PORTVERSION?
> ..
> > Just changing the maintainer should not require the user to do anything.
> 
> That is the only case I can think of.  Even changing the comment or
> pkg-descr should have its PORTREVISION bumped in order to get a new
> package built so users have the fresh description.

I would disagree.  There's no need for users to rebuild their perfectly
fine packages just so they get new description most of them do not care
about anyways.

./danfe