From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 6 22:12:53 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4E281065670 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 22:12:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jasonh@DataIX.net) Received: from www6.pairlite.com (www6.pairlite.com [64.130.10.16]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E7248FC1E for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 22:12:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dataix.net (unknown [99.19.44.133]) by www6.pairlite.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC059B825; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 18:12:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 18:12:44 -0400 From: "Jason J. Hellenthal" To: Buganini Message-Id: <20090806181244.f41bc316.jasonh@DataIX.net> In-Reply-To: References: <20090731121249.538ea7e7.jasonh@DataIX.net> <4A740679.1020608@infracaninophile.co.uk> <4A747C77.1040800@infracaninophile.co.uk> <20090801224323.GA65040@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <4A7552C8.7020508@infracaninophile.co.uk> <4A75A813.10307@infracaninophile.co.uk> <7d6fde3d0908030148h3b5a5934lb0ade13d8b095105@mail.gmail.com> <4A7724A7.6000500@FreeBSD.org> <7fX59uGuf0@dmeyer.dinoex.sub.org> Organization: DataIX X-Mailer: DataIX Mail System X-OpenPGP-Key-Id: 0x691411AC X-OpenPGP-Key-Fingerprint: 6F56 3B10 D8AD 1D33 96E7 5946 E3B6 2768 6914 11AC Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jasonh@dataix.net, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/*/jpeg "Thanks a lot guys" X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 22:12:54 -0000 I believe unless I misunderstand what you are meaning, is the same thing that PORTREVISION is meant for doing. If the maintainer like what has just recently happened for jpeg bumps the PORTREVISION up one for every port that depends on jpeg then any upgrade utilities see that port as a new version and upgrade them happily. PORTREVISION is the end of the package name as package-VERSION-{ , or _ }PORTREVISION. Personally I feel that adding another NODE_VERSION as your saying could possibly be a benefit but at this time would cause a lot of maintainer overhead on which that they already have. I think more of a short written policy or checklist system for a maintainer might be a better route. Or possibly a ticket system built around a dependency checklist that should be fulfilled before a commit on a newer version would happen. Even with the previous statement that still causes overhead in workload but eventually speeds the process up due to lack of errors and re-corrections that have to be made ultimately resulting in a higher percent of satisfied hobbyists and customers alike thus bringing in more revenue. If I could be of more assistance on this matter I have great experience satisfying time tested analytics that speed up processes in the form of Lean Manufacturing also plays a role in development. Best regards. On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 12:46:12 +0800 Buganini wrote: > Recently I'm think about how to make ports easier to upgraded: > 1) Add a NODE_VERSION in each ports' Makefile, this variable would be stored > in +CONTENTS. > 2) Add a volatile-meaning flag in description of dependencies > > When a port, A, whose NODE_VERSION in Makefile > NODE_VERSION in +CONTENTS, > ports that volatile'ly depends on A would be rebuilt. > > Any comment is welcome > > --Buganini -- Jason J. Hellenthal +1.616.403.8065 jasonh@DataIX.net