LICENSE and PORTREVISION bump

[Alexey Dokuchaev]

On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 01:18:16PM +0200, Pawel Pekala wrote:
> Dnia 2013-06-15, o godz. 14:26:27
> Boris Samorodov <bsam at passap.ru> napisaЁ(a):
> >The FreeBSD Porters Book claims that a PORTREVISION should be bumped
> >if a significant change is made to a port.
> >
> >My question is "Should a PORTREVISION be bumped while adding a
> >license?".
> >
> >I used to bump PORTREVISION but what do you think?
> 
> License framework installs files in
> ${PREFIX}/share/licenses/${PKGNAME}/ so this is a plist change.

Right, it is a plist change, so what? :-)

There is a certain diversity among folks here: some bump PORTREVISION even
when they apply pretty much no-op patch (like fixing the build on some
exotic arch), some (myself included) only bump it when absolutely necessary:
if the user installed package (before the change) is somehow broken.

User probably does not care if the port comes with bundled LICENSE or not.
In fact, I do not bump PORTREVISION when I add documentation or something,
esp. to the ports that take long times to build: I hate to rebuild things,
and I think it's quite rude to force users into rebuilding their perfectly
fine package just because we forgot to add a bunch of non-essential docs.

That said, the rule of "plist change" makes sense when previously plist was
wrong; this would mean that user's currently installed package indeed has
a problem and would not deinstall cleanly, etc.  Or PORTREVISION is good if
you fix some annoying/critical runtime bug.  But when adding just couple of
text files or LICENSE -- why bother?

./danfe