Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 16:04:25 -0400 From: Michael Scheidell <scheidell@FreeBSD.org> To: <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FAQ on PORTREVISION bump? Message-ID: <4F7DFAC9.1080806@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4F761921.7030505@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> <4F735340.1020103@FreeBSD.org> <4F7379FD.9040802@p6m7g8.com> <20120329200243.GA76833@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <20120330131625.GA30070@atarininja.org> <4F75F3ED.9000508@p6m7g8.com> <4F75FA31.2030806@p6m7g8.com> <4F760FB3.6020708@FreeBSD.org> <4F761921.7030505@p6m7g8.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 3/30/12 4:35 PM, Philip M. Gollucci wrote: > o When pkg-plist changes (except for fixing >> .ifdef/NOPORT(DOCS|EXAMPLES)) > #1 covers this, this is the OPTIONS case (default vs not) > perfect example, real world. pr hasn't been submitted yet. > > In short what you change is irrelevant. Does the resultant package > change. Yes or No. The only question you need to answer is do we bump > if the resultant package changes for configs other than default. > > prevkous committers/and/or maintainers have taken advantage of the PORTDOCS macro's, and wrapped the INSTALL_DATA inside an .if !defined (NOPORTDOCS), with macro taking care of the pkg-plist thing. This leaves 100K of 'examples', that were (are) being copied to the ../EXAMPLESdir. So, from a 'did the package change' it would/did. It would be compressed value, 100K smaller. so, pointyhat wants a portrevision bump. But from a users perspective, why do through the problems of rebuilding a port, (bringing in updated dependencies, conflicts regression testing), just to delete 100K from his ../share directory? And, in exactly this situation, I have submitted several pr's without portrevision bumps, and they have all been committed like that. no portrevision bump. (did I mention I didn't commit them? other, more senior members of the port team, who were the maintainers did?) Also, there is this one: waiting for maintainer timeout, <http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/165820>; (in a previous conversation with dougb, he suggested that i wrap PORTDOCS= around a .ifdef at that time, I didn't feel it was worth the extra work, doublecheck tinderbox, audit logs) on this one, I did. And was told by crees that I didn't need to wrap PORTDOCS= around an ifdef. So, 2 programmers, 2 opinions. Thank God I didn't ask in ports@. so, pr 165820: portrevision bump or not? this one saved 646K on the target system. My preference is to support the user/operator who would not really want to be forced to portupgrade, for something he obviously didn't care about (or he would submit a pr, and/or rm the 646K from the hd) and, next 'real' port upgrade, it will disappear anyway. -- 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?4F7DFAC9.1080806>