From owner-svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Sat Jun 17 22:51:34 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B82ACC31256; Sat, 17 Jun 2017 22:51:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com) Received: from ainaz.pair.com (ainaz.pair.com [209.68.2.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EF857A777; Sat, 17 Jun 2017 22:51:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com) Received: from ainaz.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ainaz.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FCB43F65D; Sat, 17 Jun 2017 18:44:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from anthias.dhcp.nue.suse.com (nat.nue.novell.com [195.135.221.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ainaz.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 665803F65C; Sat, 17 Jun 2017 18:44:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 00:44:23 +0200 (CEST) From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Bryan Drewery cc: Alexey Dokuchaev , Adam Weinberger , "Sergey A. Osokin" , Bartek Rutkowski , Adam Weinberger , 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 In-Reply-To: <0130a05b-8f04-1008-16bf-d7f047823cae@FreeBSD.org> Message-ID: References: <201706042038.v54KcQMf001482@repo.freebsd.org> <20170605001807.GA55217@FreeBSD.org> <20170606093911.GA98412@FreeBSD.org> <0130a05b-8f04-1008-16bf-d7f047823cae@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2017 22:51:34 -0000 On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, Bryan Drewery wrote: > On 6/6/17 5:39 AM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: >> It seems that everyone bumps port revisions whenever they please >> these days; I can confirm I am neither doing nor omitting PORTREVISION bumps lightheartedly, Alexey. :-} >> Just an exampler: r442562, where it was bumped for pkg-descr change >> (sic!) in a port that takes considerable time to build. :-( > pkg-descr is part of the generated package. Bumping PORTREVISION in that > commit had a real impact and change. Plus the actual content change is > not a small spelling change. Thanks, Bryan! > It's explaining something to users about the proper use of the port and > how to obtain the right package for the right environment. > > Yes it hurts to rebuild a port for something like this, but it is > absolutely correct. I find bumping (or not) PORTREVISION actually a bit tricky. While I believe the case above is one where this is the right thing, I have been skipping it for other cases where technically a bump would be required. Consider revision 443791: Index: gcc5/pkg-descr =================================================================== -WWW: http://gcc.gnu.org/ +WWW: https://gcc.gnu.org Since both the old and new URLs work just perfectly fine, and the former only redirects to the latter, and given that lang/gcc* are somewhat heavier ports, in this case I opted not to do the bump. Strictly speaking, however, it still would be applicable and when I don't do it always kind of wait for someone to complain. Of course, when I then do bump in a stronger case, someone complains, too. I guess you cannot win (until we have stronger tooling as Bryan hinted at). ;-) Gerald