From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 25 12:20:11 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8008C74F; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:20:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from coco@executive-computing.de) Received: from mail.moehre.org (mail.moehre.org [195.96.35.7]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42357221B; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:20:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.moehre.org (unknown [195.96.35.7]) by mail.moehre.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B6F98B14E2; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:20:04 +0200 (CEST) X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.966 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.966 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1, AWL=0.034, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=disabled Received: from mail.moehre.org ([195.96.35.7]) by mail.moehre.org (mail.moehre.org [195.96.35.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wj1A8ljWR7j4; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:20:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.100.30] (p54B0BE2E.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.176.190.46]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: coco@executive-computing.de) by mail.moehre.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 024A08B141C; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:20:02 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <526A61B8.5080500@executive-computing.de> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:19:04 +0200 From: Marco Steinbach User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: marino@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NO_STAGE: Bump PORTREVISION ? Pr class 'change' or 'update' ? References: <5268D885.8010801@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <5268D885.8010801@marino.st> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:20:11 -0000 John Marino wrote on 24.10.2013 10:21: > 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. > > >> Is this then of class '[maintainer-]update' or just 'change' ? > > I think maintainer-updates only means the maintainer wrote the PR, so if > that's the case, mark it maintainer-update. [...] From the port(1) (not port_s_) man page it looks like marking a pr as class 'update' (maintainer or nor) is substantially different from marking it as 'change'. I think, given that there's no change in functionality in the ports I'm going to modify, I'll stick with not bumping PORTREVISION as to not lead users into believing, that they need to upgrade the installed package. Which in turn results in setting the class to 'change', since that seems to fit with what it is I am doing. Thanks for your comments. MfG CoCo