Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 06:52:35 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: d@delphij.net Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, Xin LI <delphij@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r321227 - in head/net/iet: . files Message-ID: <20130619065235.GB72668@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <51C15310.5040900@delphij.net> References: <201306190224.r5J2OlM0017324@svn.freebsd.org> <20130619062325.GE61109@FreeBSD.org> <51C15310.5040900@delphij.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 02:43:28AM -0400, Xin Li wrote: > On 06/19/13 02:23, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 02:24:47AM +0000, Xin LI wrote: > >> New Revision: 321227 URL: > >> http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/321227 > >> > >> Log: Unbreak on recent -CURRENT. > >> > >> @@ -1,13 +1,9 @@ [...] PORTNAME= iet PORTVERSION= 1.4.20.2 > >> -PORTREVISION= 5 +PORTREVISION= 6 > > > > I don't see why PORTREVISION was bumped for a build fix. Or the > > package could be built, but was somehow bad? > > The port was broken for -CURRENT, but patch is applied against source > regardless of FreeBSD version, which was not broken on other platforms > (and the resulting binary may change due to this, depending on > compiler used). > > I think PORTREVISION should always be bumped when a change could touch > any files inside the binary package, no? Not really, given that this change would probably go unnoticed by the user, and does not change anything on package level. Merely the fact of shuffling the bits inside it does not warrant a port revision bump. Imagine those users who had it installed already and were happy with it, and now they are forced to rebuild it for no real reason. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130619065235.GB72668>