svn commit: r396998 - head/net/samba36

[John Marino]

On 9/19/2015 9:20 AM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 09:05:52AM +0200, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>> +--On 19 septembre 2015 01:20:59 +0200 "Timur I. Bakeyev"
>> <timur at com.bat.ru> wrote:
>> | Was it really neessary to bump port revision for the change
>>
>> I'll cut at that.  Yes, it was, the resulting package changed, so, yes,
>> bumping PORTREVISION is mandatory.
> 
> Oh please Mathieu, not this "read PHB, no thinking required" bullcrap
> again.  Apparently you don't realize how much of PITA these bumps for
> no real reason can be.  Port revision should be bumped if there was
> something *wrong* with the previous package, or rebuild is *really*
> necessary due to breaking change in its dependencies.
> 
> Perhaps frequent rebuilds is not a problem for binary package users or
> multicore machines with shitloads of RAM and fast storage, but 1) if I
> wanted to use binary packages, I guess Debian would be a better choice
> as they've got it well before we did, and 2) I don't have, and hardly
> ever will have that high-profile hardware.

-1.
I want clear and umabiguous rules.  I don't want people using their
judgement because sometimes that judgement is way in left field (but
they are convinced everyone else is stupid).

another -1 for the actual change.  Fixing shebangs fixes problems and
those should be wrapped up in a package ASAP.

The "rebuild" argument is weak right now.  All of Perl got bumped and
several other changes that means the whole repo is getting rebuilt
anyway.  This is in the noise.

I can't disagree more with the above.
John