Wesley Shields wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 03:27:07PM -0800, Yen-Ming Lee wrote:
[cc to the submitter of ports/120802 and [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2008/2/23, Wesley Shields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 04:50:16PM -0500, Randy Pratt wrote:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:26:53 -0500
Wesley Shields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 03:59:11PM -0500, Randy Pratt wrote:
I've been using portmaster for a couple of weeks and like what I've
seen. However, I'm a bit confused on how dependencies changes are
to
be handled. Here's a scenario:
Events:
2008.02.17 01:50:08 UTC devel/p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder: update to 0.22
2008.02.17 11:00:00 UTC update ports and devel/p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder
was updated
2008.02.19 05:33:50 UTC devel/p5-ExtUtils-CBuilder: Add missing
deps
ports/120802 (textproc/p5-Text-ParseWords
was
added as a build/run dependency)
Snipped the rest because I think this could have all been avoided by
bumping PORTREVISION when the dependency to p5-Text-ParseWords was
added. Ideally the dependency information should have been recorded
with the update to 0.22 (like is in ports/120802). I'm CC'ing leeym@
who made the last commit.
It would have been far easier that way of course but this isn't the
first time a dependency change has been made to some port without
bumping PORTREVISION and probably won't be the last. This situation
only existed for a couple of days and affected only those who updated
during the interim.
Right, I was just pointing out that it is not necessarily a problem with
portmaster since PORTREVISION should have been bumped. :) Thank you
for brining this up, however, since it is a mistake in the port and may
be a nice addition to portmaster (if such a thing does not already
exist).
The fact behinds this commit is that Text::ParseWords and File::Spec are
both in the core list of PERL, so ExtUtils::CBuilder will work no matter
these "dependencies" installed or not.
See http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=120802 for details.
And, two problems in this case:
1. Do we need to add some modules into dependency if they are already in the
core list of PERL itself. I myself prefer to remove them and keep the
dependency tree as simple as possible, however submitter prefer to use the
latest version, so I follow his way. Maybe you have different opinions?
I understand both viewpoints and don't feel strongly either way.
2. What does it mean to bump the PORTREVISION? I heard two meanings, one is
"you'd better reinstall it otherwise it won't work", and the other is
"something updated and it will change the package". If it means the former
one, it's not the case of ExtUtils::CBuilder. If it means the latter one,
then it's my fault, I should bump PORTREVISION anyway.
Personally, the saying I use is "if it affects the package in a
significant way, bump PORTREVISION." In this case I would have bumped
PORTREVISION, but since it's covered in perl itself, I can understand
why you didn't.
-- WXS
Well ... I like normal user, I always get much the lastest version of
the software to use. But I as a developer, with the minimal version
required (core-mod or no) is ok.
Now ... thinking better, if i as maintainer of some p5-* ports, if i
always use the version of core-mod, i'll in some way, "force" the user
to almost always be a newer version of perl (usually even 5.8.0 or
5.6.0). So we still think that the version setting minimum dependence,
it would be the best way for all.
Because then can be any version of perl, but with a module later (if
needed).
Thanks a lot! :)
--
Regards,
Felippe de Meirelles Motta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
