Portmaster and added dependencies

[Wesley Shields]

On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 03:27:07PM -0800, Yen-Ming Lee wrote:
> [cc to the submitter of ports/120802 and lbr@]
> 
> 2008/2/23, Wesley Shields <wxs at freebsd.org>:
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 04:50:16PM -0500, Randy Pratt wrote:
> > > On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:26:53 -0500
> > > Wesley Shields <wxs at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 03:59:11PM -0500, Randy Pratt wrote:
> > > > > I've been using portmaster for a couple of weeks and like what I've
> > > > > seen.  However, I'm a bit confused on how dependencies changes are
> > to
> > > > > be handled.  Here's a scenario:
> > > > >
> > > > > Events:
> > > > >
> > > > > 2008.02.17 01:50:08 UTC  devel/p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder: update to 0.22
> > > > >
> > > > > 2008.02.17 11:00:00 UTC  update ports and devel/p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder
> > > > >                          was updated
> > > > >
> > > > > 2008.02.19 05:33:50 UTC  devel/p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder: Add missing
> > deps
> > > > >                          ports/120802 (textproc/p5-Text-ParseWords
> > was
> > > > >                          added as a build/run dependency)
> > > >
> > > > Snipped the rest because I think this could have all been avoided by
> > > > bumping PORTREVISION when the dependency to p5-Text-ParseWords was
> > > > added.  Ideally the dependency information should have been recorded
> > > > with the update to 0.22 (like is in ports/120802).  I'm CC'ing leeym@
> > > > who made the last commit.
> > >
> > > It would have been far easier that way of course but this isn't the
> > > first time a dependency change has been made to some port without
> > > bumping PORTREVISION and probably won't be the last.  This situation
> > > only existed for a couple of days and affected only those who updated
> > > during the interim.
> >
> > Right, I was just pointing out that it is not necessarily a problem with
> > portmaster since PORTREVISION should have been bumped.  :)  Thank you
> > for brining this up, however, since it is a mistake in the port and may
> > be a nice addition to portmaster (if such a thing does not already
> > exist).
> >
> 
> The fact behinds this commit is that Text::ParseWords and File::Spec are
> both in the core list of PERL, so ExtUtils::CBuilder will work no matter
> these "dependencies" installed or not.
> See http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=120802 for details.
> 
> And, two problems in this case:
> 
> 1. Do we need to add some modules into dependency if they are already in the
> core list of PERL itself. I myself prefer to remove them and keep the
> dependency tree as simple as possible, however submitter prefer to use the
> latest version, so I follow his way. Maybe you have different opinions?

I understand both viewpoints and don't feel strongly either way.

> 2. What does it mean to bump the PORTREVISION? I heard two meanings, one is
> "you'd better reinstall it otherwise it won't work", and the other is
> "something updated and it will change the package". If it means the former
> one, it's not the case of ExtUtils::CBuilder. If it means the latter one,
> then it's my fault, I should bump PORTREVISION anyway.

Personally, the saying I use is "if it affects the package in a
significant way, bump PORTREVISION."  In this case I would have bumped
PORTREVISION, but since it's covered in perl itself, I can understand
why you didn't.

-- WXS