NO_STAGE: Bump PORTREVISION ? Pr class 'change' or 'update' ?

[Marco Steinbach]

John Marino wrote on 24.10.2013 10:21:
> On 10/24/2013 10:05, Marco Steinbach wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> the 'FAQ on PORTREVISION' discussion found at [1] seems to suggest, that
>> enabling staging does not require a PORTREVISION bump.
>>
>> On the other hand, enabling staging seems to be a change in packaging,
>> although from a users perspective the packaged files don't change.  And
>> a change in packaging is said to require a bump in PORTREVISION,
>> according to the referenced thread.
> 
> Are you referring to man pages?  I believe those were getting added to
> the plist internally before, so the final difference in plist before and
> after staging is zero (if man pages are the only item in question).
> 
> 
>> When enabling staging, is a maintainer supposed to bump PORTREVISION ?
> 
> 
> I don't see many PORTREVISION bumps as result of stage conversion
> (only).  So I think not.
> 
> 
>> Is this then of class '[maintainer-]update' or just 'change' ?
> 
> I think maintainer-updates only means the maintainer wrote the PR, so if
> that's the case, mark it maintainer-update.

[...]

 From the port(1) (not port_s_) man page it looks like marking a pr as 
class 'update' (maintainer or nor) is substantially different from 
marking it as 'change'.

I think, given that there's no change in functionality in the ports I'm 
going to modify, I'll stick with not bumping PORTREVISION as to not lead 
users into believing, that they need to upgrade the installed package.

Which in turn results in setting the class to 'change', since that seems 
to fit with what it is I am doing.


Thanks for your comments.

MfG CoCo