Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 09:44:53 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Vsevolod Stakhov <vsevolod@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-ports-head <svn-ports-head@freebsd.org>, "Timur I. Bakeyev" <timur@FreeBSD.org>, Steve Wills <swills@freebsd.org>, svn-ports-all <svn-ports-all@freebsd.org>, marino@freebsd.org, "ports-committers@freebsd.org" <ports-committers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r361646 - in head/net/samba36: . files Message-ID: <20140716094453.GA53961@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <53C5618F.2020104@FreeBSD.org> References: <201407122229.s6CMTN42057554@svn.freebsd.org> <CALdFvJGQq=PNpAqBBEZXi-q0GT=Ro-fRSjGcHFR1R01=FBtQOQ@mail.gmail.com> <53C322A7.2090705@marino.st> <20140714003112.GA54756@mouf.net> <CALdFvJEvf4-RSJNUVxX08T8K-tq9PoKge-XxmhDafAn_QxjEcg@mail.gmail.com> <53C451FA.2020304@marino.st> <20140715170501.GA73101@FreeBSD.org> <53C5618F.2020104@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 06:14:55PM +0100, Vsevolod Stakhov wrote: > Let me explain the situation with pkg. Pkg needs to find so called > ``upgrade chains'' that are used to upgrade packages. To find out > packages that are suitable for upgrade we use origins in pkg 1.2 and > name~origin in pkg 1.3. > > However, each package is identified by a special field called > `manifestdigest'. In pkg 1.2, this field is just sha256(manifest). > Unfortunately, this means that if *any* field of a package is changed a > version bump is required. By fields I mean files and directories as well > which leads thus to a policy where we need to bump a revision even if we > have meaningless changes in the files a package provides (that happens > after this particular change). > > With pkg 1.3 this behaviour has been changed to recognize the following > fields only: > > * name > * origin > * version > * arch > * maintainer > * www > * message > * comment > * options > > Hence, I think that with the release 1.3 of pkg we should define > revision bump policy to reflect this change. I do not find this design good enough. I don't use pkg, I like to build things. I'm happy with pkgng for keeping track of what I have installed, but still prefer to build stuff from ports the old way. Now perhaps my gear is not as fast as yours; it takes about two hours to build heavy ports like gcc47 or Boost on PowerPC 7447A (1250.35 MHz), and even on much faster Pentium M 780 (2.26GHz) building e.g. Clang takes an hour or so. So while I like to build things from source code, I certainly do not like to *rebuild* them over and over again for gratuitous reasons. Tell me, why on earth shall i bump revision for a typo fix in COMMENT or pkg-message, www, maintainer change? Why do I have to waste time and CPU cycles for rebuilding my otherwise perfectly fine packages? There should be a saner way to figure out those upgrade chains. If even a trivial change requires revbump to allow pkg to work correctly, then it must be doing it wrong, sorry. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140716094453.GA53961>