From owner-svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 16 14:12:14 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id C7113DDD; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:12:14 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:12:14 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Boris Samorodov Subject: Re: svn commit: r361646 - in head/net/samba36: . files Message-ID: <20140716141214.GA64875@FreeBSD.org> References: <53C322A7.2090705@marino.st> <20140714003112.GA54756@mouf.net> <53C451FA.2020304@marino.st> <20140715170501.GA73101@FreeBSD.org> <53C5618F.2020104@FreeBSD.org> <20140716094453.GA53961@FreeBSD.org> <53C65677.8060603@FreeBSD.org> <20140716111328.GB82901@FreeBSD.org> <53C6846A.4060909@passap.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <53C6846A.4060909@passap.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: svn-ports-head , Vsevolod Stakhov , "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 14:12:14 -0000 On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 05:55:54PM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote: > 16.07.2014 15:13, Alexey Dokuchaev пишет: > > I don't see why it cannot work the old way, just as described in PHB > > section 5.2.2.1. > > The quote: > ----- > PORTREVISION should be increased each time a change is made to the port > that changes the generated package in any way. > ----- > > > That is, bump port revision when something is wrong with previous > > package. > > I'd say you are wrong here: "...changes the generated package in any > way." You conveniently omitted the word "should" in that sentense. That's not fair play, Boris. That section also gives some examples which do not require a PORTREVISION bump; and a nice summary at the end: "A rule of thumb is to ask yourself whether a change committed to a port is something which everyone would benefit from having (either because of an enhancement, fix, or by virtue that the new package will actually work at all), and weigh that against that fact that it will cause everyone who regularly updates their ports tree to be compelled to update. If yes, the PORTREVISION should be bumped." > > Fixed typos or added license do not render previous packages wrong. > > Ditto for staging, maintainership changes or other things that are not > > user-noticeable. > > "A user noticable" is a vague criteria, while "changes the generated > package in any way" is strict one. And documented. This criterium, while being strict, is also utterly stupid; for the reasons I've stated earlier in this thread (gratuitous rebuilding of packages when there's nothing wrong with them modulo some minor typo fix in COMMENT). ./danfe