From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Jul 21 05:40:15 2011
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033)
	id ACEC71065672; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 05:40:15 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 05:40:15 +0000
From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>
To: Matthias Andree <mandree@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20110721054015.GA72702@FreeBSD.org>
References: <201107171118.p6HBIlc6096985@repoman.freebsd.org>
	<4E22E228.3020303@FreeBSD.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4E22E228.3020303@FreeBSD.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org,
	ports-committers@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/print/ghostscript9 Makefile
	ports/print/ghostscript9/files patch-base-gdevl256.c
	patch-base-gdevvglb.c
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: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 05:40:15 -0000

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 03:22:48PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Am 17.07.2011 13:18, schrieb Hiroki Sato:
> > hrs         2011-07-17 11:18:47 UTC
> > 
> >   Modified files:
> >     print/ghostscript9   Makefile 
> >   Added files:
> >     print/ghostscript9/files patch-base-gdevl256.c 
> >                              patch-base-gdevvglb.c 
> >   Log:
> >   Fix a build failure when vaglib and/or lvga256 is specified.
> 
> It is very unfortunate that the PORTREVISION was bumped, and wasteful.
> This was not necessary, let me explain:
> 
> - if the build fails given specific (apparently non-default) options,
> there is no prior port/package where files change
> 
> - we bump PORTREVISION only if installed files or dependencies change.

Even for deps/plist changes, it is not always necessary to bump revision.
If, for example, port behavior is changed so it installs few extra files,
PORTREVISION can be left intact, as long as previous version of the port has
correct plist.  On contrast, if pkg-plist was updated to include files that
were installed but didn't have plist entry before, PORTREVISION should be
bumped so users can get "fixed" package.

In general, I totally agree with Matthias on this issue: please give enough
thinking before bumping PORTREVISION.

./danfe