From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Dec  2 19:29:50 2011
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033)
	id 34F6C1065670; Fri,  2 Dec 2011 19:29:50 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 19:29:50 +0000
From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>
To: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20111202203129.456c1f1c@it.buh.tecnik93.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
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
X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: **OBSOLETE** CVS commit messages for the entire tree
	<cvs-all.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-all>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-all@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 19:29:50 -0000

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).
> 
> It is necessary to bump it, to get the package rebuilt on pointy.

Could be, although I thought that our build cluster routinely rebuilds all
the packages regardless of updates thereof.  Even in your scenario, rebuild
should benefit (affect) dependent packages, and this particular case I had
explicitly mentioned.

To be safe, one can bump port revision if plist changes even if it was
previously correct; 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?

./danfe