From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 24 08:21:49 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C65C802 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 08:21:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 276F724F5 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 08:21:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.31.9.163] (unknown [213.225.137.129]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0495043600 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 03:21:36 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <5268D885.8010801@marino.st> Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:21:25 +0200 From: John Marino User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NO_STAGE: Bump PORTREVISION ? Pr class 'change' or 'update' ? References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 08:21:49 -0000 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