svn commit: r351326 - head/Mk

[John Marino]

On 4/15/2014 15:00, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> On 4/15/2014 7:49 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>> Author: bapt
>> Date: Tue Apr 15 12:49:46 2014
>> New Revision: 351326
>> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/351326
>> QAT: https://qat.redports.org/buildarchive/r351326/
>>
>> Log:
>>   Register deprecation and expiration in packages
>>
> 
> This will require bumping PORTREVISION for DEPRECATED and EXPIRE_DATE
> changes, resulting in a 100% useless rebuild.
> 
> It would be much better to not have this in the packages at all and only
> in the repo.

I think this conclusion depends on individual interpretation.
Did the installed binary change?  No, so no bump needed.  Does the pkg
internal database contents change?  yes.  Does that require a bump?

That depends on how vital the information is.
If it's considered "nice to have" and people can live with it only
coming in when the PKGNAME changes, then no bump is required.  If the
lack of transparency on DEPRECATION is considered a real issue (and sure
many people do believe this) then yes, a bump would be needed to get it
visible.

We're only talking about 120 packages here, so the price is not very
high.  My vote is to that if this helps binary package users see
deprecated packages clearly then it's worth the rebuild.

John