From owner-svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 15 17:14:59 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 846AAC16; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 17:14:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from h.highsecure.ru (mail6.highsecure.ru [IPv6:2a01:4f8:191:22a6::99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B10A2DA4; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 17:14:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from medway.cl.cam.ac.uk (medway.cl.cam.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:212:238:21c:c0ff:fe4b:2b85]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: vsevolod@highsecure.ru) by h.highsecure.ru (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6B0A9300460; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 19:13:38 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <53C5618F.2020104@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 18:14:55 +0100 From: Vsevolod Stakhov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexey Dokuchaev , marino@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r361646 - in head/net/samba36: . files References: <201407122229.s6CMTN42057554@svn.freebsd.org> <53C322A7.2090705@marino.st> <20140714003112.GA54756@mouf.net> <53C451FA.2020304@marino.st> <20140715170501.GA73101@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20140715170501.GA73101@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: svn-ports-head , Steve Wills , svn-ports-all , "Timur I. Bakeyev" , "ports-committers@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 17:14:59 -0000 On 15/07/14 18:05, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:56:10PM +0200, John Marino wrote: >> On 7/14/2014 22:01, Timur I. Bakeyev wrote: >>> You bumped PORTREVISION, although there wasn't any pkg list change - so >>> all the users now have to recompile not so tiny samba36 just to fix >>> shebang in one rarely used file. >> >> Kind of like being "almost" pregnant? >> If the contents of the package changes *at all* you are supposed to >> revbump, not just if the pkg-plist changes. It's not a judgement call >> -- if the file is important enough to be in the package, it's important >> enough to bump when it changes. > > Sorry, but I'm on Timur's side here: portrevs bumps are IMHO being abused > way too often for little to no benefit. I'm wasting huge deal of CPU cycles > for countless rebuilding of perfectly fine packages just because folks tend > to bump revs on even teeniest changes. > > FWIW, having both "not a judgement call" and "important enough" in the same > sensence looks like oxymoron to me. > > ./danfe > Let me explain the situation with pkg. Pkg needs to find so called ``upgrade chains'' that are used to upgrade packages. To find out packages that are suitable for upgrade we use origins in pkg 1.2 and name~origin in pkg 1.3. However, each package is identified by a special field called `manifestdigest'. In pkg 1.2, this field is just sha256(manifest). Unfortunately, this means that if *any* field of a package is changed a version bump is required. By fields I mean files and directories as well which leads thus to a policy where we need to bump a revision even if we have meaningless changes in the files a package provides (that happens after this particular change). With pkg 1.3 this behaviour has been changed to recognize the following fields only: * name * origin * version * arch * maintainer * www * message * comment * options Hence, I think that with the release 1.3 of pkg we should define revision bump policy to reflect this change. -- Vsevolod Stakhov