At 9:37 AM +0100 3/26/09, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
Garance A Drosihn píe v st 25. 03. 2009 v 18:18 -0400:
>That is the only case I can think of. Even changing the comment or
>pkg-descr should have its PORTREVISION bumped in order to get a new
>package built so users have the fresh description.
Ew, I don't like that at all. Why should I rebuild (say) bash just
because someone fixes a typo in the description? The port is already
installed, and I have no intention of reading the description until
*maybe* the next time the package really does change.
It's probably not that big a deal for bash, which is fairly easy to
build and well-behaved. Now let's change the pkg-descr for some key
component of Gnome, and have people spend a day to rebuild it and
everything that depends on it, just because a description changed?
Certainly not everything that depends on it. You have a good overview
of how ports work?
Oh, right, this wouldn't be the kind of change which would trigger
rebuilds of other components, even if the change was to some kind
of library. I was just thinking of some changes where I only had
one port which was really out-of-date, but updating that component
triggered rebuilds of many other ports.
Well, still, why rebuild *anything* because pkg-desc changed?
--
Garance Alistair Drosehn = [email protected]
Senior Systems Programmer or [email protected]
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or [email protected]
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
