Alexey Dokuchaev <da...@freebsd.org> wrote in <20110721054015.ga72...@freebsd.org>:
da> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 03:22:48PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: da> > Am 17.07.2011 13:18, schrieb Hiroki Sato: da> > > hrs 2011-07-17 11:18:47 UTC da> > > da> > > Modified files: da> > > print/ghostscript9 Makefile da> > > Added files: da> > > print/ghostscript9/files patch-base-gdevl256.c da> > > patch-base-gdevvglb.c da> > > Log: da> > > Fix a build failure when vaglib and/or lvga256 is specified. da> > da> > It is very unfortunate that the PORTREVISION was bumped, and wasteful. da> > This was not necessary, let me explain: da> > da> > - if the build fails given specific (apparently non-default) options, da> > there is no prior port/package where files change da> > da> > - we bump PORTREVISION only if installed files or dependencies change. da> da> Even for deps/plist changes, it is not always necessary to bump revision. da> If, for example, port behavior is changed so it installs few extra files, da> PORTREVISION can be left intact, as long as previous version of the port has da> correct plist. On contrast, if pkg-plist was updated to include files that da> were installed but didn't have plist entry before, PORTREVISION should be da> bumped so users can get "fixed" package. da> da> In general, I totally agree with Matthias on this issue: please give enough da> thinking before bumping PORTREVISION. Sorry, I mistakenly thought one of the options was enabled by default for some reason. -- Hiroki
pgpRGLEv3coi5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
