FAQ on PORTREVISION bump?

[Michael Scheidell]

On 4/5/12 4:04 PM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
>
> 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.
>

> 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>
>
on pointyhat, package won't change, since pointyhat does not define 
NOPORT(DOCS|EXAMPLES), so, package does not change.

So, for all conditions:
ie: we do/don't want pointyhat to rebuild pkg... this would be a noop.
     if we do/don't think the OP would want to rebuild pkg.. if they 
don't assign NOPORT*, then its a noop.  (and if they are concerned, can 
rm the files.)
and, no, pav is wrong ;-)

you don't want to have your port do a rm -rf /usr/local/share.

At least two ports that I know of put critical files in there, and, if 
you do that, the portupgrade/portmaster/make delinstall will squeal to 
the next system OP that there is something bad wrong, because pkg-plist 
is wrong, and it can't delete files, can't em dirs, and did not delete 
the package.


anyone important want to commit this pr?

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/165820

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