cvs commit: ports/security/p5-Crypt-OpenSSL-X509 Makefile

[Alexey Dokuchaev]

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 10:09:57AM +0100, Philippe Audeoud wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 08:41:26AM +0000, Philippe Audeoud wrote:
> > > jadawin     2010-01-28 08:41:26 UTC
> > > 
> > >   FreeBSD ports repository
> > > 
> > >   Modified files:
> > >     security/p5-Crypt-OpenSSL-X509 Makefile 
> > >   Log:
> > >   - Mark as BROKEN for 6.X
> > >   - Bump PORTREVISION
> > 
> > Could you explain why PORTREVISION bump was in order here?
> 
> Hello,

Please do not trim CC: next time unless discussion clearly advises it.

> 
> "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."
> Then, this port is broken for 6.X, it's seems that is something which
> everyone would benefit from having etc, etc...

Mark it BROKEN, fine (if you don't want to fix it).  However, I see
absolutely no reason behind PORTREVISION bump.  Those who still on 6.X
would not get the build done regardless of your commit: it does not fix
anything.  (Even if it would, there is nothing to _bump_ from, since
there is _no_ previous version -- port was unbuildable.)  Bumps only
make sense when there is clear reference point: e.g. people with
_installed_ port that has some plist issue fixed would benefit from the
bump, since it will take care of unreferenced files or missing/wrong
dependencies for them.

Probably the only impact your commit does is that vast majority of our
users would now have to rebuild and reinstall their perfectly fine
installation of this port for absolutely no reason.  I would say this is
definitely not "something which everyone would benefit from".

./danfe