svn commit: r442588 - in head/www: nginx nginx-full

[Alexey Dokuchaev]

On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 05:50:06PM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote:
> > On 4 Jun, 2017, at 18:18, Sergey A. Osokin <osa at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Bartek and Adam,
> > 
> > I don't think I can get this, so two questions for you guys:
> > o) what was the reason to bump PORTREVISION in www/nginx?
> > o) wouldn't it btter to just bump PORTREVISION in www/nginx-full?
> 
> Hi Sergey,

[ Wrapping very long lines ]

> I'll give Bartek a chance to explain in more detail, but I supported an
> nginx bump because it was less complex for the future.
> 
> If nginx-full got a bump, then it would need to be bumped every time
> nginx got bumped, or nginx would have to be bumped by two and nginx-full's
> PORTREVISION line gets removed, and then the line has to be removed at the
> next nginx update or reset. At the end of the day, bumping nginx was more
> straightforward. It triggers an update for everyone else, but becomes less
> invasive over the long haul.

It seems that everyone bumps port revisions whenever they please these days;
wondering about it just a waste of time.  Just an exampler: r442562, where
it was bumped for pkg-descr change (sic!) in a port that takes considerable
time to build. :-(

./danfe