svn commit: r361646 - in head/net/samba36: . files

[Alexey Dokuchaev]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 01:12:43PM +0100, Vsevolod Stakhov wrote:
> Then we would have different packages with the same version. And pkg
> will not perform an upgrade. Nontheless, in the current scheme, we take
> unnecessary fields, such as licenses or comments, into consideration.

About the "different packages with the same version" -- but aren't you
trying to come up with more fine-grained criteria for pkg to understand
if it's time to upgrade, not just look at version/revision/epoch?  (Or
perhaps I'm just understanding "same version" wrongly in this context.)

> Moreover, manifest cannot rely on svn, so if you take a look on some
> manifest generated from a port you could figure out what fields are

I would say that pkg(8) cannot rely on svn (and that's natural), but we
can insert last change rev into +MANIFEST when generating it, no?  So
it will just become another field akin to version and revision.

> likely important and what fields are just meaningless. I'd like to
> remind that my current set is the following:
> 
> *  maintainer
> *  www
> *  message
> *  comment

I agree with Michael here; these four fields IMHO should be dropped from
consideration (irregardless of if svn rev can/will be embedded or not).

./danfe

P.S.  About that +MANIFEST file: can we please please please make it
human readable?  Like, break the lines, use indentation, etc.  Maybe it
is more appropriate to keep +COMPACT_MANIFEST as one-liner, although I
am not convinced that separate +COMPACT_MANIFEST should exist at all.