ports/*/jpeg "Thanks a lot guys"

[Jason J. Hellenthal]

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:53:16 -0500
"Jeremy Messenger" <mezz7 at cox.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:36:36 -0500, Erik Trulsson <ertr1013 at student.uu.se>  
> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:12:49PM -0400, Jason J. Hellenthal wrote:
> >>
> >> Now that I have finally upgraded my system in full from the last mix-up
> >> with jpeg, You guys have bumped up every PORTREVISION that depends on  
> >> jpeg
> >> "Great real great" Now I get to spend another three days fixing up some
> >> more packages and rebuilding about 800+ ports.
> >>
> >> Thanks a whole lot.
> >
> > Nobody is forcing you to rebuild your ports just because the PORTREVISION
> > was bumped.  If everything works fine for you there is actually no good
> > reason at all to do so.
> 

So now the implication becomes that everyone should resort to manual checking of port versions and upgrade each port manually from here on out ?. Because if that is going to happen then eventually someone or a amateur for that matter is going to manually check their ports and come across an update they need and then it will update hand-in-hand every port that depends on libjpeg just to satisfy itself.

Am I wrong ? is this not why portupgrade and portmaster were created so this could be done autonomously ?

Don't get me wrong but I have been very involved in this upgrade that slipped into my systems from the 19th and it is frustrating when a rather circumvented actions consequences were not well thought out and gets repeated again for a third time.

Please don't take this as a list bash or a personal matter, but I believe this needs to be discussed so it could be prevented in the future.

Maybe a policy change on library bumps ? that gets more developers involved so the process is less likely to cause administration overhead. Or a policy stating that if your ports lib is bumped you should also bump all PORTREVISIONS that depend on it at the time it is committed ?.

That is up for discussion and these are only thoughts but they are thoughts with a new user community in mind.

Best regards.
I am not on this list: please CC me in your replies.


> Yes, but how can you tell if there is newer version? The pkg_version and  
> pkgversion don't tell you that it's PORTREVISION or actually newer  
> version. What about when we run 'port* -a'? Took about two weeks to get  
> PORTREVISION bump isn't right at all.
> 
> Cheers,
> Mezz
> 
> 
> -- 
> mezz7 at cox.net  -  mezz at FreeBSD.org
> FreeBSD GNOME Team
> http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/  -  gnome at FreeBSD.org
Thanks Mezz

-- 
Jason J. Hellenthal
+1.616.403.8065
jasonh at DataIX.net