On May 9, 2012, at 09:48, Daniel J. Luke wrote: > On May 7, 2012, at 2:32 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> As far as I know things are working correctly the way they are today. What >> problem are you trying to solve? It sounds like you're saying MacPorts >> should compare the Portfile in the ports tree with the one in the archive, >> and if they differ, ignore the archive and build from source. If so, I see >> no reason to do that. If a Portfile change would result in a port needing to >> be rebuilt, the committer would have increased the revision. > > human error?
Sure. You know of a way to take humans out of the equation? >> And if not, then there's no reason not to use an available archive. For >> example, just because someone decides to add a modeline or adjust a port's >> whitespace or formatting is no reason to discard an archive built from the >> previous Portfile. > > it might be nice to automate things to the point where any change to a > portfile re-creates the archive (especially if the buildbots aren't > overloaded). That doesn't entirely help. Unless the revision is increased, "port outdated" will not tell a user that they should rebuild, nor will rebuilding do anything unless the user forces it. The status quo remains: maintainers must remember to increase the revision when they commit a change that users should receive, same as it's always been. I don't think making maintainers remember this simple rule is too much to ask. _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
