On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:45:40AM +0200, Clemens Lang wrote: > We are in control of that, so it's entirely our decision whether a > revbump is our only way to ensure users rebuild.
I think the way I'd prefer to handle this would be to have the buildbot produce a list of ports that need to be revbumped. At first, we might have it just report the list; later, we could move to havign it actually bump the revisions. > I don't see how that takes more time than it did before – the rebuild > was needed anyway and the buildbot would have done it anyway: Either > because rev-upgrade detected broken linkage, or because somebody > commited a revbump. Remember, there's no point in keeping a broken > package around. There might not be much point in keeping a broken package around, but I think it's still valuable to have an identifier for each version. That way, we know what version someone has installed, what version is available on a mirror, that the signature file is for the same version as the archive, etc. We could come up with a separate build ID or something for this, but I don't think that buys us anything over just using the revision. Dan -- Dan R. K. Ports UW CSE http://drkp.net/ _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
