cvs commit: ports/net/ekiga pkg-plist

[Jeremy Messenger]

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 11:13:33 -0600, Doug Barton <dougb at FreeBSD.org> wrote:

> Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
>> On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 09:29 -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
>>> ????????? 21 ?????? 2008 09:21 ??, Edwin Groothuis ?? ????????:
>>>>> The new package NEVER built because of the problem, that was just  
>>>>> fixed.
>>>> It's more to differentiate between working and non-working versions.
>>> They are both working versions. If you need to make a distinction, you  
>>> can look at the $FreeBSD$-string.
>>>
>>> Bumping up the PORTREVISION would trigger an utterly useless rebuild  
>>> on thousands (millions?) of end-user computers and should not be  
>>> performed lightly.
>
> While I agree with that in principle, I'm confused by your earlier  
> statement. Were users able to compile and install this new version of  
> the port previously, and only the package building was broken?

Well, it's not only for package. What about users' systems that use ports?  
What if one of user decide to uninstall ekiga? It will ending up with  
leftover files in their system. Bump is need to have their system clean.  
As for not like to build again, perhaps we need to come up with new  
*VERSION like PLISTVERSION that will only fix plist without have to  
rebuild.

Cheers,
Mezz

>> It would trigger a rebuild which would provide a correct pkg-plist.  For
>> this reason alone, policy mandates any plist change requires a
>> PORTREVISION bump.
>
> Applying that policy without careful thought means that you're putting  
> the needs of the system ahead of what is best for our users. Stepping  
> away from this particular port for a second, if you have a port that  
> never compiled, installed, or packaged; then you fix it, bumping  
> PORTREVISION is meaningless either way. It doesn't affect the users or  
> the (non-existent) package. If only packaging is broken, bumping  
> PORTREVISION is not just pointless, it's actually harmful to users since  
> they have to rebuild something that won't actually change, and they can  
> just as easily pick up the plist fix on the next legitimate update.  
> (There is an edge case here where what is fixed in this plist update  
> won't be present in the next version, which would obviously require a  
> bump.)
>
> It's way too easy to say, "oh, this knob is shiny, let's turn it!"  
> without thinking of where the benefits lie for the users. I personally  
> like the way someone else stated the principle, "If a change affects the  
> package, PORTREVISION should be bumped." That makes sense, and balances  
> the needs of the system and the needs of the user.
>
> Doug
>



-- 
mezz7 at cox.net  -  mezz at FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD GNOME Team  -  FreeBSD Multimedia Hat (ports, not src)
http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/  -  gnome at FreeBSD.org
http://wiki.freebsd.org/multimedia  -  multimedia at FreeBSD.org