svn commit: r396998 - head/net/samba36

[Alexey Dokuchaev]

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 09:32:52AM +0200, John Marino wrote:
> On 9/19/2015 9:20 AM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 09:05:52AM +0200, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> >> +--On 19 septembre 2015 01:20:59 +0200 "Timur I. Bakeyev"
> >> <timur at com.bat.ru> wrote:
> >> | Was it really neessary to bump port revision for the change
> >>
> >> I'll cut at that.  Yes, it was, the resulting package changed, so, yes,
> >> bumping PORTREVISION is mandatory.
> > 
> > Oh please Mathieu, not this "read PHB, no thinking required" bullcrap
> > again.  Apparently you don't realize how much of PITA these bumps for
> > no real reason can be.  Port revision should be bumped if there was
> > something *wrong* with the previous package, or rebuild is *really*
> > necessary due to breaking change in its dependencies.
> 
> -1.
> I want clear and umabiguous rules.  I don't want people using their
> judgement because sometimes that judgement is way in left field (but
> they are convinced everyone else is stupid).

I'm fine with clear and umabiguous rules too.  I just want bumping rules
to become more granular.  Plain "package changed -> need a bump" means
that fixing a typo in pkg-descr would require it.  Don't you think this
is a bit too extreme?

./danfe