Joshua Root <j...@macports.org> writes: > On 2016-7-21 09:24 , Brandon Allbery wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Sean Farley <s...@macports.org >> <mailto:s...@macports.org>> wrote: >> >> OpenMPI just released 2.0 which will change the name of the libraries. >> I'm guessing I should revbump all the dependents to force a rebuild but >> is this something that `port rev-upgrade` should handle? >> >> >> I think you can get into trouble with the automatic rev-upgrade catching >> it, if it causes an upgrade for other reasons to fail? At the very least >> it could be inefficient by causing multiple rounds of rebuilding >> triggered during the rev-upgrade at the end of a normal upgrade. > > The biggest reason to rev bump is that if you don't, the archives are > useless. They get downloaded and installed, then rev-upgrade immediately > detects that the linking is broken and rebuilds from source.
Ah, of course, good point. > If the original question was about whether the rev bumping should be > automated, well, maybe. We could certainly run rev-upgrade in report > mode on all a port's dependents after it is updated. Do we then want the > system automatically committing a rev bump? I'm not so sure. It might be > better to just email a warning to the maintainers. One day, I'd like bots that try to update a port automatically and send the patch to the maintainers. Hopefully, this would include rev bumping but that's a far off dream right now. > A concept of an archive revision as distinct from a port revision might > be useful here. Yeah, that's not a bad idea either. _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev