On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 19:29:50 +0000 Alexey Dokuchaev <da...@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 <da...@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. No, that only happens when we do a full build == build all ports. We usually only do incremental builds == 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. > > 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) -- IOnut - Un^d^dregistered ;) FreeBSD "user" "Intellectual Property" is nowhere near as valuable as "Intellect" FreeBSD committer -> ite...@freebsd.org, PGP Key ID 057E9F8B493A297B
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
