Questions about port revision numbers, portsnap, csup

[Greg Larkin]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Joe Auty wrote:
> Hello,

Hi Joe,

> 
> I've identified my pecl-APC install as being broken after upgrading to
> PHP 5.3.2. 

Does pecl-APC not compile, or is it functionally broken after compiling
succesfully?

According to the commit history listed here:
> http://www.freshports.org/www/pecl-APC/ there is a fix out. However,
> doing a portsnap fetch update does not seem to fetch this latest
> revision to this port, after doing my portsnap it shows no updates are
> available for the port although I'm pretty certain that I last
> portsnapped before April 12. I'm assuming that portsnap only grabs a new
> version of the portrevision number has been bumped?

No, portsnap builds new updates based on the latest bits committed to
the ports tree CVS repository, no matter if PORTREVISION has been bumped
or not.

> 
> My questions:
> 
> 1) If I were to csup my ports tree to force a fetch of this update,
> would this break portsnap?

Yes, you would have to do "portsnap fetch extract" again at a later time.

> 
> 2) Is there a way to look at the commit history of the ports I have
> installed in /usr/ports so that I can verify whether or not I have the
> revision with this particular fix? Thus far I've been relying on
> freshports.org and trusting that doing a portsnap will always fetch the
> latest stuff visible on freshports.org, but now I'm not so sure...

Is /usr/ports/www/pecl-APC/files/patch-php_apc.c present on your
machine?  If so, then you have the latest commit.

> 
> 3) Shouldn't the portrevision number be bumped whenever there is an
> update? I always assumed that the _x suffixes indicated a portrevision
> bump. Why was it not bumped for this pecl-APC fix? Human error? Is there
> any other way I can force the download of this port, or is csup my best bet?

No, PORTREVISION is only bumped in certain circumstances.  In this case,
PHP 5.3.2 caused compiler errors for pecl-APC.  Committing a change to
the port to get it to compile does not necessitate a PORTREVISION bump.
 You can find more information here:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/book.html#MAKEFILE-NAMING-REVEPOCH

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Regards,
Greg
- --
Greg Larkin

http://www.FreeBSD.org/           - The Power To Serve
http://www.sourcehosting.net/     - Ready. Set. Code.
http://twitter.com/sourcehosting/ - Follow me, follow you
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iD8DBQFLzJNj0sRouByUApARAoM+AKC/vBEWijwa0DNF2riicpmzsGnNfACeLjaS
kxmePUMG3CnGuwPwrrZZvCI=
=9JNL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----