Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:06:56 -0400 From: Michael Scheidell <scheidell@FreeBSD.org> To: "Philip M. Gollucci" <pgollucci@gmail.com> Cc: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@missouri.edu>, ports@freebsd.org, Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com>, Jason Helfman <jhelfman@e-e.com> Subject: Re: FAQ on PORTREVISION bump? Message-ID: <4F735340.1020103@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4F734524.2000400@p6m7g8.com> References: <4F732C89.3040804@FreeBSD.org> <CADLo838kts0QhA1Rvf=S-GCZK2quyfmUdJHUqn6J2-31F9aWXQ@mail.gmail.com> <4F733432.4020902@FreeBSD.org> <63ca1b333a310ecc2b1d1f0e1e1542a1.squirrel@mail.experts-exchange.com> <4F7338C3.8020003@p6m7g8.com> <4F733C3A.7020004@missouri.edu> <4F734524.2000400@p6m7g8.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 3/28/12 1:06 PM, Philip M. Gollucci wrote: > On 03/28/12 16:28, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: >> But, for example, it seems to me that PORTREVISION should NOT be bumped >> if a LIB_DEPENDS changes, and it is not a major library revision change. >> For example, in this case the portmaster program reinstalls the library >> only, and changes the +CONTENTS and +REQUIRED_BY of the various >> installed packages appropriately. And the program will still work just >> fine. So PORTREVISION should not be bumped. > I'm fairly sure thats exactly backwards. I believe you're talking about > our 'Chase sh lib version bump' commits which most definitely require a > bump even if the major version doesn't change, b/c the old packages will > reference the old library. > > Take devel/apr-1 for example. So, basically, you do enough pr's, you will bump portrevision and someone will complain, and you will skip bumping portrevision and someone will complain :-) 10 programmers, 15 opinions. -- Michael Scheidell, CTO >*| * SECNAP Network Security Corporation d: +1.561.948.2259 w: http://people.freebsd.org/~scheidell
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F735340.1020103>