Recent massive port update.

[jhell]

On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 15:05, 000.fbsd@ wrote:
> Matthew Seaman wrote:
>> 
>> On 06/02/2010 09:40, Heino Tiedemann wrote:
>> 
>>> Shouldn't there be an entry in UPDATING, that "jpeg" has to be
>>> rebuildet first?
>>> 
>>> I rebuilded everything - but i have no idea about the order aof port
>>> reinstalling.
>> 
>> Actually that's not necessary in this case entirely because the commit
>> was so large.  Every port that needs to be rebuilt because it depends
>> on libjpeg has had it's PORTREVISION bumped.  That means that if you
>> just do a 'portupgrade -a' or 'portmaster -a' the right thing will
>> happen automatically.
>
>
> No metter if there is revision bump or not, it should be in UPDATING as it 
> was in case of jpeg-7.
>
> 20090719:
>  AFFECTS: users of graphics/jpeg
>  AUTHOR: dinoex at FreeBSD.org
>
>  The IJG jpeg library has been updated to version 7.0.  Please rebuild all 
> ports that depend on it.
>
> Miroslav Lachman
>

Weighing this out among the should not be and should be.

Here is my opinion.

An addition to UPDATING for a large scale update of ports due to a port 
that spans across a majority of the tree is needed because:

 	1). Not everyone is subscribed to ports at .
 	2). It touches a large amount of users and ports.
 	3). Reference points at which times/dates specific updates has
 	occurred.

There might be other reasons or 2 that could be invalidated above by 
opinion and how you handle your own ports but fact of the matter is [1] 
not everyone is subscribed to ports@ and when they update the ports tree 
there is nothing stating specifically whats going on. UPDATING is a central 
place.

Thanks to the work of dinoex he has taken it upon himself to ensure that 
everyone upgrades go as smoothly as possible but not everything will 
always be perfect. This is quite the responsibility to take on and a 
applause should be in order.


Best wishes and great dwellings,

-- 

  jhell