cvs commit: ports/net/trafshow Makefile distinfo

[Sahil Tandon]

On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 01:18:32 -0300, Marcelo Araujo wrote:

> >  On 02/27/2011 11:32, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> >
> > If the IPv6 option is off by default (and thus, does not affect the
> > default package), why do you bump PORTREVISION?  I just want to
> > understand for my own edification when dealing with similar
> > situations.
> 
> Well, I've used the latest paragraph that discribe when we should bump
> PORTREVISION.
> 
> """A rule of thumb is to ask yourself whether a change committed to a
> port is something which someone, somewhere, would benefit from having
> (either because of an enhancement, fix, or by virtue that the new
> package will actually work for them). If yes, the PORTREVISION should
> be bumped so that automated tools (e.g. pkg_version) will highlight
> the fact that a new package is available."""
>
> As the IPv6 option can be a good enhancement for trafshow, I decided
> to BUMP PORTREVISION. I believe in this case it is OK. If not, please
> someone else correct me.

Thanks for your response.  I do not mean to nag, but I am still not 100%
clear. The quote above ends with "highlight the fact that a new package
is available".  Because IPV6 is off by default, no new package is
actually available -- the default package remains functionally
unchanged.  I agree that IPV6 is a good enhancement, but if that itself
(regardless of whether it changes the package) warrants a PORTREVISION
bump, perhaps we can clarify the language in the Porter's Handbook.  If
the language is clear as-is, and it is just my failure to correctly
interpret it, then let me know.
 
> I'm gonna checking how the other ports dealing with IPv6 support, then
> I'm gonna check if it stay like now or put it by default ON.

If there is a new option that is enabled by default, then I think we all
agree to increment PORTREVISION.

-- 
Sahil Tandon <sahil at FreeBSD.org>