cvs commit: ports/shells/bash Makefile pkg-plist

[Garance A Drosihn]

At 9:30 PM -0700 3/23/09, David O'Brien wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 09:23:25PM -0400, Wesley Shields wrote:
>>  On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:14:13PM +0000, David O'Brien wrote:
>>  > On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 01:34:26PM +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
>>  > > David O'Brien wrote:
>>  > > >There is zero reason to force a reinstall for a PLIST change.
>>  > > >Either the port is already installed (and the user can wait for
>>  > > >some other reason to update), or the port isn't installed and
>>  > > >bumping PORTREVISION does nothing.
>>  > >
>  > > > It's needed for package cluster, otherwise it does not know to
>  > > > rebuild and will serve incomplete package forever.
>  > >
>>  > Is there ever a change then that doesn't require a bump in either
>>  > PORTREVISION or PORTVERSION?
>..
>>  Just changing the maintainer should not require the user to do anything.
>
>That is the only case I can think of.  Even changing the comment or
>pkg-descr should have its PORTREVISION bumped in order to get a new
>package built so users have the fresh description.

Ew, I don't like that at all.  Why should I rebuild (say) bash just
because someone fixes a typo in the description?  The port is already
installed, and I have no intention of reading the description until
*maybe* the next time the package really does change.

It's probably not that big a deal for bash, which is fairly easy to
build and well-behaved.  Now let's change the pkg-descr for some key
component of Gnome, and have people spend a day to rebuild it and
everything that depends on it, just because a description changed?
In a file that no one is reading given that the port is already
installed?

-- 
Garance Alistair Drosehn            =   gad at gilead.netel.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer           or  gad at freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute    or  drosih at rpi.edu