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

[Vsevolod Stakhov]

On 16/07/14 12:53, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 12:35:42PM +0100, Vsevolod Stakhov wrote:
>> On 16/07/14 12:13, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
>>> I don't see why it cannot work the old way, just as described in PHB
>>> section 5.2.2.1.  

<skipped>

>> that was lie over all the history of the ports. Indeed, if we define
>> something like 'bump revision if something is wrong with a port' then we
>> are in trouble, as different maintainers have different viewpoints about
>> what is wrong and what is not. Hence, if you have more constructive
>> suggestions than to throw out pkg I would appreciate to hear them.
> 
> Can you elaborate more on why we are in trouble if I don't bump revisions
> on typo fixes, mastersite updates or adding of LICENSE knob?  What is the
> breakage scenario here (for pkg users)?

Again, I have no objections about licenses/comments/whatever. I want
actually merely to figure out, which manifest's fields are
*significant*. At this point, I can easily change this list without
insulting users. On the contrary, after 1.3 release that would be hard.
I suggest thus to stop bikescheding and switch to constructive
discussion and define how should we distinguish one package from
another. And no, we *cannot* rely on port version/revision/epoch only!

-- 
Vsevolod Stakhov