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

[Boris Samorodov]

16.07.2014 18:12, Alexey Dokuchaev пишет:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 05:55:54PM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote:
>> 16.07.2014 15:13, Alexey Dokuchaev п©п╦я┬п╣я┌:
>>> I don't see why it cannot work the old way, just as described in PHB
>>> section 5.2.2.1.
>>
>> The quote:
>> -----
>> PORTREVISION should be increased each time a change is made to the port
>> that changes the generated package in any way.
>> -----
>>
>>> That is, bump port revision when something is wrong with previous
>>> package.
>>
>> I'd say you are wrong here: "...changes the generated package in any
>> way."
> 
> You conveniently omitted the word "should" in that sentense.  That's not
> fair play, Boris.

I show only the criteria here. The action was at the first qoute.
And yes, the action is "should be done".

>  That section also gives some examples which do not
> require a PORTREVISION bump; and a nice summary at the end:
> 
>   "A rule of thumb is to ask yourself whether a change committed to a port
>    is something which everyone would benefit from having (either because of
>    an enhancement, fix, or by virtue that the new package will actually work
>    at all), and weigh that against that fact that it will cause everyone who
>    regularly updates their ports tree to be compelled to update. If yes, the
>    PORTREVISION should be bumped."

I don't read this paragraph as a summary. For me it's a summary for the
case "when PORTREVISION bump is not required".

Otherwise the quote I give and your quote conflict with each other.

>>> Fixed typos or added license do not render previous packages wrong.
>>> Ditto for staging, maintainership changes or other things that are not
>>> user-noticeable.
>>
>> "A user noticable" is a vague criteria, while "changes the generated
>> package in any way" is strict one. And documented.
> 
> This criterium, while being strict, is also utterly stupid; for the reasons
> I've stated earlier in this thread (gratuitous rebuilding of packages when
> there's nothing wrong with them modulo some minor typo fix in COMMENT).

My main idea is: "We have rules to follow. If we need changes, let's
change rules first."

-- 
WBR, Boris Samorodov (bsam)
FreeBSD Committer, http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve