Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 05:40:15 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Matthias Andree <mandree@FreeBSD.org> 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 Message-ID: <20110721054015.GA72702@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4E22E228.3020303@FreeBSD.org> References: <201107171118.p6HBIlc6096985@repoman.freebsd.org> <4E22E228.3020303@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110721054015.GA72702>