Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 22:39:21 +0200 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org, "Sergey A. Osokin" <osa@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, Pietro Cerutti <gahr@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: [ports] cvs commit: ports/devel/glui Makefile ports/devel/glui/files patch-makefile Message-ID: <20111202223921.51d005cd@it.buh.tecnik93.com> In-Reply-To: <20111202192950.GA39748@FreeBSD.org> References: <201112011044.pB1Aiql7047544@repoman.freebsd.org> <20111201104500.30DC91065789@hub.freebsd.org> <20111201110523.GA17923@FreeBSD.org> <20111201114822.GA63988@FreeBSD.org> <20111202203129.456c1f1c@it.buh.tecnik93.com> <20111202192950.GA39748@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Sig_/M=wOTeAsgYK_x.wumoVcKc8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 19:29:50 +0000 Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 08:31:29PM +0200, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote: > > On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 11:48:22 +0000 > > Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > > While normally, since both old and new packages have correct > > > pkg-list, bumping PORTREVISION is not necessary, in this case it > > > might be required if this is dependent port, and consumers might > > > want to link to newly installed shared library (that is, if > > > previously installed version would not work). > >=20 > > It is necessary to bump it, to get the package rebuilt on pointy. >=20 > Could be, although I thought that our build cluster routinely > rebuilds all the packages regardless of updates thereof. No, that only happens when we do a full build =3D=3D build all ports. We usually only do incremental builds =3D=3D build ports with PKGVERSION bigger that their existing package. > Even in your scenario, rebuild should benefit (affect) dependent > packages, and this particular case I had explicitly mentioned. >=20 > To be safe, one can bump port revision if plist changes even if it was > previously correct; Yes. > however, I have not seen technical proof that it should always be > done, but I of course could be wrong. As an edge case, why bump port > revision for a leaf port, if pkg-plist was previously correct and new > files do not change port's behavior (read: bring no visible changes > to users or their vast majority), especially when the rebuild is very > time consuming? Hard to know what "vast majority" is exactly :) (The current rule is to bump when the plist would change if the port is built with defaults) --=20 IOnut - Un^d^dregistered ;) FreeBSD "user" "Intellectual Property" is nowhere near as valuable as "Intellect" FreeBSD committer -> itetcu@FreeBSD.org, PGP Key ID 057E9F8B493A297B --Sig_/M=wOTeAsgYK_x.wumoVcKc8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk7ZN3oACgkQJ7GIuiH/oeUK7QCfceSWVzBZJY50aF1uLdGUO5+o 7ZQAoJp1iuYW8BHkUxNA5OnNEhcws8z0 =Dyg7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/M=wOTeAsgYK_x.wumoVcKc8--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111202223921.51d005cd>