FAQ on PORTREVISION bump?

[Chris Rees]

On 28 Mar 2012 19:06, "Michael Scheidell" <scheidell at freebsd.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/28/12 1:06 PM, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
>>
>> On 03/28/12 16:28, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> But, for example, it seems to me that PORTREVISION should NOT be bumped
>>> if a LIB_DEPENDS changes, and it is not a major library revision change.
>>>  For example, in this case the portmaster program reinstalls the library
>>> only, and changes the +CONTENTS and +REQUIRED_BY of the various
>>> installed packages appropriately.  And the program will still work just
>>> fine.  So PORTREVISION should not be bumped.
>>
>> I'm fairly sure thats exactly backwards.  I believe you're talking about
>> our 'Chase sh lib version bump' commits which most definitely require a
>> bump even if the major version doesn't change, b/c the old packages will
>> reference the old library.
>>
>> Take devel/apr-1 for example.
>
> So, basically, you do enough pr's, you will bump portrevision and someone
will complain, and you will skip bumping portrevision and someone will
complain :-)
>
> 10 programmers, 15 opinions.
>
>

... which is why an FAQ page is good to point at if people moan!

I look forward to the comments on your proposed list ;)

Chris