On Oct 31, 2012, at 4:43 PM, Jeremy Lavergne <[email protected]> wrote: >> Which is very unwanted on the other hand, since it is so sticky, i.e. will >> have to be increased forever once it has been added to a port file, right?! >> So, it's best to find a way around epoch! > > Apart from reinstalling very large packages, are there reasons to avoid > rebuilding on any change rather than just checking epoch_version_revision?
Way back when, we decided to use revision for 'significant' changes to a portfile (instead of automating it). IIRC the reason back then was to prevent everyone from having to rebuild for something like a whitespace change. > If it doesn't need to be linear then we could just use a hash of the Portfile > to track if anything changed. Anything at all. or the revision of the repo ... but I think there is still some value of having revision decoupled from the contents of the portfile (especially for systems or individual ports for which we aren't providing binaries). -- Daniel J. Luke +========================================================+ | *---------------- [email protected] ----------------* | | *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* | +========================================================+ | Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily | | reflect the opinions of my employer. | +========================================================+ _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
