On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 19:17:27 +0200 Rainer Müller <rai...@macports.org> wrote: > On 2018-04-26 18:55, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 02:46:43 +1000 Joshua Root <j...@macports.org> > > wrote: > >>> So what might work would be trying out installing the archives > >>> in a sandbox and using the same mechanism that's used locally > >>> before triggering a rebuild? > >> > >> Sounds like a plan? > >> <https://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2018-April/038496.html> > >> > >> ;-P > > > > Pardon my ignorance, but I'm not sure I understand why the rev > > bump would still be necessary if we could tell the build bots to > > just rebuild the package at that point? > > If you rebuild the archive, new installations will get the new > version. But what about existing installations? > > We should get the updated port to users without forcing them to > rebuild locally from source. That requires to bump the revision.
Ah, so now it all becomes clear. The issue is when you are updating it isn't trivial to query against a particular set of dependencies. The revbump eliminates this issue by changing the package revision number so you naturally download it anyway. Thank you. That explanation makes sense. I'll need to think for a bit. Perry -- Perry E. Metzger pmetz...@macports.org
