Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 09:39:11 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> Cc: "Sergey A. Osokin" <osa@FreeBSD.org>, Bartek Rutkowski <robak@FreeBSD.org>, Adam Weinberger <adamw@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r442588 - in head/www: nginx nginx-full Message-ID: <20170606093911.GA98412@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <C38A2113-0736-4687-91D8-D49722D61E35@adamw.org> References: <201706042038.v54KcQMf001482@repo.freebsd.org> <20170605001807.GA55217@FreeBSD.org> <C38A2113-0736-4687-91D8-D49722D61E35@adamw.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 05:50:06PM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote: > > On 4 Jun, 2017, at 18:18, Sergey A. Osokin <osa@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Bartek and Adam, > > > > I don't think I can get this, so two questions for you guys: > > o) what was the reason to bump PORTREVISION in www/nginx? > > o) wouldn't it btter to just bump PORTREVISION in www/nginx-full? > > Hi Sergey, [ Wrapping very long lines ] > I'll give Bartek a chance to explain in more detail, but I supported an > nginx bump because it was less complex for the future. > > If nginx-full got a bump, then it would need to be bumped every time > nginx got bumped, or nginx would have to be bumped by two and nginx-full's > PORTREVISION line gets removed, and then the line has to be removed at the > next nginx update or reset. At the end of the day, bumping nginx was more > straightforward. It triggers an update for everyone else, but becomes less > invasive over the long haul. It seems that everyone bumps port revisions whenever they please these days; wondering about it just a waste of time. Just an exampler: r442562, where it was bumped for pkg-descr change (sic!) in a port that takes considerable time to build. :-( ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170606093911.GA98412>