FAQ on PORTREVISION bump?

Doug Barton dougb at FreeBSD.org
Thu Mar 29 07:42:06 UTC 2012


On 3/28/2012 8:21 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> Looking for an FAQ on PORTREVISION bumps on commits, pr's.

If the package is going to change, it needs to be bumped. It's
unfortunate that we don't have more flexibility in the system, but it is
what it is.

> Basically, I make the decision based on 'hey, if I was running a cronjob
> to do a portupgrade -Rr every night, would I want this to be upgraded'?
> 
> I know if something is broken across all builds, it doesn't need a
> portrevision bump.

Personally, if it's broken for i386 and amd64, it doesn't need a bump.
The likelihood that it's broken for those 2 but working on anything else
is near-zero, and the likelihood that anyone would care is even smaller.

> If portversion is bumped, portrevision needs to be reset to 0 (line
> deleted from Makefile)
> pkg-plist changed (except for tweaks for portdocs/portexamples)

portdocs/portexamples are included by default, so changes there need a
bump.

> options change?  I would think so, I see 'make config' called sometimes
> on portrevision bump, so I assume if I change the defaults, or add an
> option that changes build, I should bump it.

Right.

> What about things like removing a run_depends that isn't nessessary?

Yes, that changes the package.

>  ie:
> 
> build_depends= This \ That \ TheOther
> run_depends+= $build_depends
> 
> but, in reality, you only need 'that' to run.
> 
> build_depends= This \ That \ TheOther
> run_depends = that

Also changes the package, and in a way that's particularly important to
the package itself, since only run deps get installed along with it.

> Would the average OP want to rebuild the package just to eliminate the
> extra run depends?  I am thinking, not.  why bother?

See above. Also the PH section on why we have a separation between RUN_
and BUILD_ in the first place.

hth,

Doug




More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list