On 3/30/12 4:35 PM, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
o When pkg-plist changes (except for fixing
.ifdef/NOPORT(DOCS|EXAMPLES))
#1 covers this, this is the OPTIONS case (default vs not)
perfect example, real world.
pr hasn't been submitted yet.
In short what you change is irrelevant. Does the resultant package
change. Yes or No. The only question you need to answer is do we bump
if the resultant package changes for configs other than default.
prevkous committers/and/or maintainers have taken advantage of the
PORTDOCS macro's, and wrapped the INSTALL_DATA inside an .if !defined
(NOPORTDOCS), with macro taking care of the pkg-plist thing.
This leaves 100K of 'examples', that were (are) being copied to the
../EXAMPLESdir.
So, from a 'did the package change' it would/did. It would be
compressed value, 100K smaller. so, pointyhat wants a portrevision bump.
But from a users perspective, why do through the problems of rebuilding
a port, (bringing in updated dependencies, conflicts regression
testing), just to delete 100K from his ../share directory?
And, in exactly this situation, I have submitted several pr's without
portrevision bumps, and they have all been committed like that. no
portrevision bump.
(did I mention I didn't commit them? other, more senior members of the
port team, who were the maintainers did?)
Also, there is this one: waiting for maintainer timeout,
<http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/165820>
(in a previous conversation with dougb, he suggested that i wrap
PORTDOCS= around a .ifdef at that time, I didn't feel it was worth the
extra work, doublecheck tinderbox, audit logs)
on this one, I did. And was told by crees that I didn't need to wrap
PORTDOCS= around an ifdef.
So, 2 programmers, 2 opinions. Thank God I didn't ask in ports@.
so, pr 165820: portrevision bump or not? this one saved 646K on the
target system.
My preference is to support the user/operator who would not really want
to be forced to portupgrade, for something he obviously didn't care
about (or he would submit a pr, and/or rm the 646K from the hd)
and, next 'real' port upgrade, it will disappear anyway.
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
>*| * SECNAP Network Security Corporation
d: +1.561.948.2259
w: http://people.freebsd.org/~scheidell
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
