Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:21:25 +0200 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NO_STAGE: Bump PORTREVISION ? Pr class 'change' or 'update' ? Message-ID: <5268D885.8010801@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1310240931590.54762@probsd.c0c0.intra> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1310240931590.54762@probsd.c0c0.intra>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/24/2013 10:05, Marco Steinbach wrote: > Hi, > > the 'FAQ on PORTREVISION' discussion found at [1] seems to suggest, that > enabling staging does not require a PORTREVISION bump. > > On the other hand, enabling staging seems to be a change in packaging, > although from a users perspective the packaged files don't change. And > a change in packaging is said to require a bump in PORTREVISION, > according to the referenced thread. Are you referring to man pages? I believe those were getting added to the plist internally before, so the final difference in plist before and after staging is zero (if man pages are the only item in question). > When enabling staging, is a maintainer supposed to bump PORTREVISION ? I don't see many PORTREVISION bumps as result of stage conversion (only). So I think not. > Is this then of class '[maintainer-]update' or just 'change' ? I think maintainer-updates only means the maintainer wrote the PR, so if that's the case, mark it maintainer-update. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5268D885.8010801>