FAQ on PORTREVISION bump?

[Michael Scheidell]

On 3/30/12 4:35 PM, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> o When pkg-plist changes (except for fixing
>>             .ifdef/NOPORT(DOCS|EXAMPLES))
> #1 covers this, this is the OPTIONS case (default vs not)
>
perfect example, real world.

pr hasn't been submitted yet.
>
> In short what you change is irrelevant. Does the resultant package
> change. Yes or No.  The only question you need to answer is do we bump
> if the resultant package changes for configs other than default.
>
>
prevkous committers/and/or maintainers have taken advantage of the 
PORTDOCS macro's, and wrapped the INSTALL_DATA inside an .if !defined 
(NOPORTDOCS), with macro taking care of the pkg-plist thing.

This leaves 100K of 'examples', that were (are) being copied to the 
../EXAMPLESdir.

So, from a 'did the package change' it would/did.  It would be 
compressed value, 100K smaller.  so, pointyhat wants a portrevision bump.
But from a users perspective, why do through the problems of rebuilding 
a port, (bringing in updated dependencies, conflicts regression 
testing), just to delete 100K from his ../share directory?

And, in exactly this situation, I have submitted several pr's without 
portrevision bumps, and they have all been committed like that.  no 
portrevision bump.
(did I mention I didn't commit them?  other, more senior members of the 
port team, who were the maintainers did?)

Also, there is this one:  waiting for maintainer timeout,
<http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/165820>

(in a previous conversation with dougb, he suggested that i wrap 
PORTDOCS= around a .ifdef  at that time, I didn't feel it was worth the 
extra work, doublecheck tinderbox, audit logs)

on this one, I did.  And was told by crees that I didn't need to wrap 
PORTDOCS= around an ifdef.

So, 2 programmers, 2 opinions.  Thank God I didn't ask in ports at .

so, pr 165820:  portrevision bump or not? this one saved 646K on the 
target system.
My preference is to support the user/operator who would not really want 
to be forced to portupgrade, for something he obviously didn't care 
about (or he would submit a pr, and/or rm the 646K from the hd)

and, next 'real' port upgrade, it will disappear anyway.


-- 
Michael Scheidell, CTO
 >*| * SECNAP Network Security Corporation
d: +1.561.948.2259
w: http://people.freebsd.org/~scheidell