Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 15:21:23 -0500 From: Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists@tx.rr.com> To: marino@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Cc: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> Subject: Re: NO_STAGE: Bump PORTREVISION ? Pr class 'change' or 'update' ? Message-ID: <B7212F8BFC84E703644B3E2D@localhost> In-Reply-To: <5268D885.8010801@marino.st> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1310240931590.54762@probsd.c0c0.intra> <5268D885.8010801@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--On October 24, 2013 10:21:25 AM +0200 John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> wrote: > On 10/24/2013 10:05, Marco Steinbach wrote: >> Hi, >> >> the 'FAQ on PORTREVISION' discussion found at [1] seems to suggest, that >> enabling staging does not require a PORTREVISION bump. >> >> On the other hand, enabling staging seems to be a change in packaging, >> although from a users perspective the packaged files don't change. And >> a change in packaging is said to require a bump in PORTREVISION, >> according to the referenced thread. > > Are you referring to man pages? I believe those were getting added to > the plist internally before, so the final difference in plist before and > after staging is zero (if man pages are the only item in question). > > >> When enabling staging, is a maintainer supposed to bump PORTREVISION ? > > > I don't see many PORTREVISION bumps as result of stage conversion > (only). So I think not. > I am working on a perfect example of why PORTREVISION MUST be bumped. I maintain security/barnyard2, which requires an update for reasons other than STAGE. As with any port, if I have to update it, I'm also going to comply with the latest architecture (as I did when OPTIONS changed), so I'm including a change to use STAGE. There is a slave port, security/barnyard2-sguil, which has STAGE= no in its Makefile. If I don't bump the PORTREVISION, that port will not update and subsequently will not build, because it's expecting the parent port NOT to be using STAGE. So I need to use PORTREVISION to force clients to pickup the change to STAGE in_both_ports or they won't work at all. I suspect that what's happened is that, without guidance, port maintainers are choosing both options for various reasons, which leads to inconsistency in the ports tree. ISTM a change as major as STAGE should REQUIRE that PORTREVISION be bumped. -- Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions are my own and not those of my employer. ******************************************* "It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use of reason as to administer medication to the dead." Thomas Jefferson "There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them." George Orwell
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?B7212F8BFC84E703644B3E2D>