[Bug 226926] [PATCH] Tools/scripts/bump-revision.sh lack a safety belt

[bugzilla-noreply at freebsd.org]

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226926

            Bug ID: 226926
           Summary: [PATCH] Tools/scripts/bump-revision.sh lack a safety
                    belt
           Product: Ports & Packages
           Version: Latest
          Hardware: Any
                OS: Any
            Status: New
          Severity: Affects Some People
          Priority: ---
         Component: Individual Port(s)
          Assignee: multimedia at FreeBSD.org
          Reporter: gerald at FreeBSD.org
                CC: mat at FreeBSD.org
          Assignee: multimedia at FreeBSD.org
             Flags: maintainer-feedback?(multimedia at FreeBSD.org)

Created attachment 191816
  --> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=191816&action=edit
Proposed patch

Before my commit in revision r464215 (cf. bug #226533) 
Tools/scripts/bump-revision.sh would wreak havoc on the
multimedia/avidemux* ports.

This can hardly be blamed on bump-revision.sh, but a safety belt for
this important script would be a good idea.

My attached patch tries to accomplish that, but using `make -V PORTREVISION`
before and after the bumping and raising an error if the latter value is
lower or equal to the former.

How to reproduce:

  % cd $PORTSDIR
  % svn up -r 464036 multimedia/
  % Tools/scripts/bump-revision.sh multimedia/avidemux*

With my patch this prints:

  INFO: multimedia/avidemux PORTREVISION=       9 found, bumping it by 1.
  INFO: multimedia/avidemux-cli PORTREVISION not found, adding PORTREVISION= 1
  ERROR: multimedia/avidemux-cli PORTREVISION went backwards from 5 to 1!
  INFO: multimedia/avidemux-plugins PORTREVISION not found, adding
PORTREVISION= 1 
  ERROR: multimedia/avidemux-plugins PORTREVISION went backwards from 5 to 1!
  INFO: multimedia/avidemux-qt4 PORTREVISION not found, adding PORTREVISION= 1
  ERROR: multimedia/avidemux-qt4 PORTREVISION went backwards from 5 to 1!

The beauty of my approach is that it uses a different approach than simple
text search, and the one that the ports framework actually uses when it runs.


Happy to tweak that patch, otherwise also happy to commit this if you
approve.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.