Portmaster and added dependencies

[Felippe de Meirelles Motta]

Wesley Shields wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 03:27:07PM -0800, Yen-Ming Lee wrote:
>   
>> [cc to the submitter of ports/120802 and lbr@]
>>
>> 2008/2/23, Wesley Shields <wxs at freebsd.org>:
>>     
>>> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 04:50:16PM -0500, Randy Pratt wrote:
>>>       
>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:26:53 -0500
>>>> Wesley Shields <wxs at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 03:59:11PM -0500, Randy Pratt wrote:
>>>>>           
>>>>>> I've been using portmaster for a couple of weeks and like what I've
>>>>>> seen.  However, I'm a bit confused on how dependencies changes are
>>>>>>             
>>> to
>>>       
>>>>>> be handled.  Here's a scenario:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Events:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2008.02.17 01:50:08 UTC  devel/p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder: update to 0.22
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2008.02.17 11:00:00 UTC  update ports and devel/p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder
>>>>>>                          was updated
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2008.02.19 05:33:50 UTC  devel/p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder: Add missing
>>>>>>             
>>> deps
>>>       
>>>>>>                          ports/120802 (textproc/p5-Text-ParseWords
>>>>>>             
>>> was
>>>       
>>>>>>                          added as a build/run dependency)
>>>>>>             
>>>>> Snipped the rest because I think this could have all been avoided by
>>>>> bumping PORTREVISION when the dependency to p5-Text-ParseWords was
>>>>> added.  Ideally the dependency information should have been recorded
>>>>> with the update to 0.22 (like is in ports/120802).  I'm CC'ing leeym@
>>>>> who made the last commit.
>>>>>           
>>>> It would have been far easier that way of course but this isn't the
>>>> first time a dependency change has been made to some port without
>>>> bumping PORTREVISION and probably won't be the last.  This situation
>>>> only existed for a couple of days and affected only those who updated
>>>> during the interim.
>>>>         
>>> Right, I was just pointing out that it is not necessarily a problem with
>>> portmaster since PORTREVISION should have been bumped.  :)  Thank you
>>> for brining this up, however, since it is a mistake in the port and may
>>> be a nice addition to portmaster (if such a thing does not already
>>> exist).
>>>
>>>       
>> The fact behinds this commit is that Text::ParseWords and File::Spec are
>> both in the core list of PERL, so ExtUtils::CBuilder will work no matter
>> these "dependencies" installed or not.
>> See http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=120802 for details.
>>
>> And, two problems in this case:
>>
>> 1. Do we need to add some modules into dependency if they are already in the
>> core list of PERL itself. I myself prefer to remove them and keep the
>> dependency tree as simple as possible, however submitter prefer to use the
>> latest version, so I follow his way. Maybe you have different opinions?
>>     
>
> I understand both viewpoints and don't feel strongly either way.
>
>   
>> 2. What does it mean to bump the PORTREVISION? I heard two meanings, one is
>> "you'd better reinstall it otherwise it won't work", and the other is
>> "something updated and it will change the package". If it means the former
>> one, it's not the case of ExtUtils::CBuilder. If it means the latter one,
>> then it's my fault, I should bump PORTREVISION anyway.
>>     
>
> Personally, the saying I use is "if it affects the package in a
> significant way, bump PORTREVISION."  In this case I would have bumped
> PORTREVISION, but since it's covered in perl itself, I can understand
> why you didn't.
>
> -- WXS
>
>   
Well ... I like normal user, I always get much the lastest version of 
the software to use. But I as a developer, with the minimal version 
required (core-mod or no) is ok.

Now ... thinking better, if i as maintainer of some p5-* ports, if i 
always use the version of core-mod, i'll in some way, "force" the user 
to almost always be a newer version of perl (usually even 5.8.0 or 
5.6.0). So we still think that the version setting minimum dependence, 
it would be the best way for all.
Because then can be any version of perl, but with a module later (if 
needed).

Thanks a lot! :)

-- 
Regards,
Felippe de Meirelles Motta
lippemail at gmail.com