From owner-svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 16 12:21:34 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10E7737E for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 12:21:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.grem.de (outcast.grem.de [213.239.217.27]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 673B921D1 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 12:21:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 71916 invoked by uid 89); 16 Jul 2014 12:21:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bsd64.grem.de) (mg@grem.de@88.217.180.32) by mail.grem.de with ESMTPA; 16 Jul 2014 12:21:30 -0000 Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:21:30 +0200 From: Michael Gmelin To: Vsevolod Stakhov 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: <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> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.10.1 (GTK+ 2.24.22; amd64-portbld-freebsd10.0) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: svn-ports-head , Alexey Dokuchaev , "Timur I. Bakeyev" , Steve Wills , svn-ports-all , marino@freebsd.org, "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: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 12:21:34 -0000 On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:12:43 +0100 Vsevolod Stakhov 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