Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 09:32:04 +0200 From: Eitan Adler <eitanadlerlist@gmail.com> To: Edwin Groothuis <edwin@mavetju.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: better way to handle required rebuild on library bump Message-ID: <a0777e081002062332j50003abcg855989523c18a0d2@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20100206222758.GA8745@mavetju.org> References: <a0777e081002061348w2df8927brcc247ce0e3fdf5c7@mail.gmail.com> <20100206222758.GA8745@mavetju.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Edwin Groothuis <edwin@mavetju.org> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 11:48:33PM +0200, Eitan Adler wrote: > > The recent change to jpeg required a lot of changes to a lot of ports all > > just to bump a version number. > > That is true, there is a script for in /usr/ports/Tools/scripts/ > called bump_version.pl which can do most of the magic. > I didn't know that - this solves /most/ of the issue. > > > It is easy to miss things this way and requires a lot of work and > > downloading. > > Oh, you are talking about the user side of things. Please have a > look at portmaster or portupgrade, they can do this magic for you. > > No, I am talking about the committer's side of things. It is easy to miss a port that depends on the library your changing. > > > I propose that some kind of MAJORVERSION be stored in /var/db/ports. Then > > when a library's MAJORVERSION is changed it will prompt a rebuild on any > > port that relies on it will also get rebuilt. > > I like the idea, but it handles the problem from the wrong side: > The person who bumps the port revisions would need to have all ports > installed to make this judgement. > Why? This would be done at the same time that bumping revisions would have been done,
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?a0777e081002062332j50003abcg855989523c18a0d2>