svn commit: r361646 - in head/net/samba36: . files

[Vsevolod Stakhov]

On 16/07/14 13:07, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 12:58:01PM +0100, Vsevolod Stakhov wrote:
>> Again, I have no objections about licenses/comments/whatever. I want
>> actually merely to figure out, which manifest's fields are
>> *significant*. At this point, I can easily change this list without
>> insulting users. On the contrary, after 1.3 release that would be hard.
> 
> Understood; sounds certainly reasonable.
> 
>> I suggest thus to stop bikescheding and switch to constructive
>> discussion and define how should we distinguish one package from
>> another. And no, we *cannot* rely on port version/revision/epoch only!
> 
> One thing that comes to mind is svn info /usr/ports/foo/bar | grep Last
> Changed Rev.  Then port (portupgrade) users won't get upset by countless
> portrevs, and pkg will be able to rebuild (redistribute) a package even
> if maintainer forgot to bump portrev (esp. for an important update).

Then we would have different packages with the same version. And pkg
will not perform an upgrade. Nontheless, in the current scheme, we take
unnecessary fields, such as licenses or comments, into consideration.
Moreover, manifest cannot rely on svn, so if you take a look on some
manifest generated from a port you could figure out what fields are
likely important and what fields are just meaningless. I'd like to
remind that my current set is the following:

*  name
*  origin
*  version
*  arch
*  maintainer
*  www
*  message
*  comment
*  options

And I think it is far from being perfect.

-- 
Vsevolod Stakhov