[28760] trunk/dports/devel/libtool/Portfile

Ryan Schmidt ryandesign at macports.org
Sun Sep 9 15:43:39 PDT 2007

On Sep 8, 2007, at 23:39, N_Ox wrote:

> Le 8 sept. 07 à 22:04, Ryan Schmidt a écrit :
>> On Sep 8, 2007, at 08:58, source_changes at macosforge.org wrote:
>>> Revision: 28760
>>>           http://trac.macosforge.org/projects/macports/changeset/ 
>>> 28760
>>> Author:   nox at macports.org
>>> Date:     2007-09-08 06:58:45 -0700 (Sat, 08 Sep 2007)
>>> Log Message:
>>> -----------
>>> libtool:
>>>  * Added standard doc install.
>> Please don't forget to increment the port revision when you make a  
>> change that causes the port to install different files. I've been  
>> fixing this on the ones you've just committed.
> From what I've understood until now, documentation files is not  
> relevant enough to increase revision number.
> Nevertheless, it would not hurt that much to increase it and i have  
> never done it because i thought that was the current policy, thanks  
> again for noticing me it's not.

I feel that if the complement of files that gets installed by port is  
different, the revision number needs to be increased (unless the  
version increases, and then the revision needs to be deleted or  
dropped to 0). I think that's pretty simple and easy to remember, so  
that's what I recommend. We should document this in the guide. If  
anybody objects to this policy, let's please discuss it now.

The goal is for everybody who installs a port to get the same  
software. It's confusing if some people who install libtool-1.5.24_0  
get one thing and other people who install libtool-1.5.24_0 get  
something different.

Perhaps documentation files are minor. Perhaps not. Either way, I  
think we want people who are submitting bugs, for example, to be able  
to do so unambiguously against a particular port version and  
revision. What if the bug is about the documentation? What if someone  
has libtool-1.5.24_0 installed and notices that there is no  
documentation, and submits a bug "libtool-1.5.24_0 should install  
documentation"? It seems natural to respond "I updated the port to  
install the documentation, and 'port outdated' will soon show it, and  
you can then update to it." It seems weird to say "I updated the port  
to install the documentation, but I'm not incrementing the revision,  
so the only way to obtain the documentation is to either know that I  
did this and force an upgrade, or hope that libtool will be updated  
to a new version soon so that you get the documentation then."

It also simplifies answering questions. "Do I have the libtool  
documentation?" It's nice to be able to answer "Do you have 1.5.24_1  
or later? Then yes. Otherwise no." It's not so nice to have to answer  
"Do you have 1.5.24_1 or later? Then yes. Do you have 1.5.22_0 or  
earlier? Then no. Do you have 1.5.24_0? Ok, when did you install it?  
If before September 8, then no. If after, then yes."

More information about the macports-dev mailing list