svn commit: r513679 - head/sysutils/fusefs-smbnetfs/files

[Gleb Popov]

On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 12:11 PM Tobias Kortkamp <tobik at freebsd.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 11:59:10AM +0400, Gleb Popov wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 9:44 AM Tobias Kortkamp <tobik at freebsd.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 05:45:40PM +0000, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> > > > Author: mi
> > > > Date: Thu Oct  3 17:45:39 2019
> > > > New Revision: 513679
> > > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/513679
> > > >
> > > > Log:
> > > >   Add a patch from upstream, fixing the author's typo in an option's
> > > name.
> > > >   It only affects users of libsecret, which is off by default --
> thus no
> > > >   port-revision bump.
> > >
> > > That's not a valid reason not to bump PORTREVISION.  Please bump
> > > it so that users how happen to build it with LIBSECRET=on get your
> > > fix automatically.
> > >
> >
> > I have been told that PORTREVISION should be bumped whenever output
> package
> > changes. It isn't the case here. Or am I mistaken?
>
> We do not have options specific PORTREVISIONs and there are more
> package repositories than pkg.FreeBSD.org.  If you have previously
> built your packages with LIBSECRET=on, the applied fix will change
> the package in a non-trivial way.  However since PORTREVISION was
> not bumped Poudriere or other package builders will not rebuild the
> package.  Bascially people will have to micromanage/force the rebuild
> fusefs-smbnetfs if they want this fix.  fusefs-smbnetfs is hardly
> an expensive package to build so saving rebuilds at the cost of
> wasting people's time is not worth it and bad UX.
>

I see, thanks for explanation.