Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:21:30 +0200 From: Michael Gmelin <grembo@freebsd.org> To: Vsevolod Stakhov <vsevolod@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-ports-head <svn-ports-head@freebsd.org>, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>, "Timur I. Bakeyev" <timur@FreeBSD.org>, Steve Wills <swills@freebsd.org>, svn-ports-all <svn-ports-all@freebsd.org>, marino@freebsd.org, "ports-committers@freebsd.org" <ports-committers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r361646 - in head/net/samba36: . files Message-ID: <20140716142130.4eee44fb@bsd64.grem.de> In-Reply-To: <53C66C3B.1000905@FreeBSD.org> References: <CALdFvJEvf4-RSJNUVxX08T8K-tq9PoKge-XxmhDafAn_QxjEcg@mail.gmail.com> <53C451FA.2020304@marino.st> <20140715170501.GA73101@FreeBSD.org> <53C5618F.2020104@FreeBSD.org> <20140716094453.GA53961@FreeBSD.org> <53C65677.8060603@FreeBSD.org> <20140716111328.GB82901@FreeBSD.org> <53C6638E.6000801@FreeBSD.org> <20140716115304.GA5861@FreeBSD.org> <53C668C9.9030209@FreeBSD.org> <20140716120705.GA14729@FreeBSD.org> <53C66C3B.1000905@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:12:43 +0100 Vsevolod Stakhov <vsevolod@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > On 16/07/14 13:07, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 12:58:01PM +0100, Vsevolod Stakhov wrote: > >> Again, I have no objections about licenses/comments/whatever. I > >> want actually merely to figure out, which manifest's fields are > >> *significant*. At this point, I can easily change this list without > >> insulting users. On the contrary, after 1.3 release that would be > >> hard. > > > > Understood; sounds certainly reasonable. > > > >> I suggest thus to stop bikescheding and switch to constructive > >> discussion and define how should we distinguish one package from > >> another. And no, we *cannot* rely on port version/revision/epoch > >> only! > > > > One thing that comes to mind is svn info /usr/ports/foo/bar | grep > > Last Changed Rev. Then port (portupgrade) users won't get upset by > > countless portrevs, and pkg will be able to rebuild (redistribute) > > a package even if maintainer forgot to bump portrev (esp. for an > > important update). > > Then we would have different packages with the same version. And pkg > will not perform an upgrade. Nontheless, in the current scheme, we > take unnecessary fields, such as licenses or comments, into > consideration. Moreover, manifest cannot rely on svn, so if you take > a look on some manifest generated from a port you could figure out > what fields are likely important and what fields are just > meaningless. I'd like to remind that my current set is the following: > > * name > * origin > * version > * arch > * options I would remove these: > * maintainer > * www > * message > * comment Rational: If any of those changes and it's important, the maintainer will bump the revision anyway. None of these have any impact on how the pkg works in practice, so a loppy maintainer won't harm the user here. It might be worthwhile to include the following fields instead: * users * groups Since those clearly might make a difference. Not certain about license related fields. > > And I think it is far from being perfect. > -- Michael Gmelin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140716142130.4eee44fb>