On Aug 12, 2014, at 10:06 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: > > On Aug 12, 2014, at 11:04 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> >> On Aug 12, 2014, at 9:26 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: >>> it wouldn't be horrible if setting a revision just changed dist_subdir >>> automatically (even when it's not necessary), which I think is what Sean >>> was suggesting. >> >> In addition, a stealth update does not imply that the revision needs to be >> increased. Sometimes a change in a distfile does not warrant a rebuild. As >> explained in the recipe. > > If I understand Sean right, he's just looking for areas where we can > automate/simplify processes. I don't really care about the specific case of > stealth-upgrades, but it would be possible to trade some disk > space/network/something else to make the process easier for portfile > developers.
Ideally, stealth updates should never occur. They do occur sometimes, and we should definitely take the opportunity when they do occur to educate developers about why they should never ever do that again. And I don't think we should make the MacPorts experience worse for users in the very normal situation of a revision increase occurring, just to slightly more automatically handle the very rare and undesirable situation of a stealth update. It's still not totally automatic: the developer still has to update the checksums, so if the developer is sufficiently aware that the checksums need to be updated, why can't the developer also follow the stealth update recipe? This hasn't been a problem before. _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
