On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 01:18:16PM +0200, Pawel Pekala wrote: > Dnia 2013-06-15, o godz. 14:26:27 > Boris Samorodov <[email protected]> napisaŠ(a): > >The FreeBSD Porters Book claims that a PORTREVISION should be bumped > >if a significant change is made to a port. > > > >My question is "Should a PORTREVISION be bumped while adding a > >license?". > > > >I used to bump PORTREVISION but what do you think? > > License framework installs files in > ${PREFIX}/share/licenses/${PKGNAME}/ so this is a plist change.
Right, it is a plist change, so what? :-) There is a certain diversity among folks here: some bump PORTREVISION even when they apply pretty much no-op patch (like fixing the build on some exotic arch), some (myself included) only bump it when absolutely necessary: if the user installed package (before the change) is somehow broken. User probably does not care if the port comes with bundled LICENSE or not. In fact, I do not bump PORTREVISION when I add documentation or something, esp. to the ports that take long times to build: I hate to rebuild things, and I think it's quite rude to force users into rebuilding their perfectly fine package just because we forgot to add a bunch of non-essential docs. That said, the rule of "plist change" makes sense when previously plist was wrong; this would mean that user's currently installed package indeed has a problem and would not deinstall cleanly, etc. Or PORTREVISION is good if you fix some annoying/critical runtime bug. But when adding just couple of text files or LICENSE -- why bother? ./danfe _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
