Misuse of PORTREVISION (Re: svn commit: r434379 - head/multimedia/x265)

[Mikhail T.]

On 21.02.2017 10:52, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>> Just did. But I believe, our usage of PORTREVISION is wrong-headed.
> I completely agree. The problem is that portupgrade/portmaster do not
> handle shlib bumps and do not force rebuilding depending ports. If you
> want to fix those tools to behave in a better way, please do so.
I'm neither the author nor a maintainer of these tools. But I'm glad we 
agree on the underlying problem.
> In the mean time, when some shlib version is bumped, all consumers must
> have their PORTREVISION bumped.

The tools have been broken in this manner /for years/ -- why would they 
ever change, if PORTREVISION is bumped every time? And, when it is not, 
PortMgr-officials go hunting the offender -- instead of the actual 
authors/maintainers of the broken tools?

    -mi