[90234] trunk/dports/devel/lua-luahpdf/Portfile

[Clemens Lang]

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 05:35:47AM -0500, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> Exactly. The buildbot will not rebuild the package unless you increase
> the port's revision.
> 
> r90234 changed the files that the port is supposed to install: it adds
> examples. But because she did not increase the port's revision, the
> buildbot did not rebuild the package. The package on the packages
> server therefore does not contain the examples. The port's revision
> needs to be increased, so that the buildbot will rebuild the package
> so that it contains the examples.

But isn't it a perfectly fine strategy (for whatever reasons), to update
parts of a Portfile without increasing the revision when planning to
increase the version shortly after anyway? We've seen the buildbot
doesn't rebuild the package and thus only gets the new (or removed)
files with the version update and users don't see the Portfiles for
another 30 minutes. While there is a possibility users are seeing a
"inconsistent" version of a port (and the probability increases the
longer the time between the commits) it isn't very high and acceptable
imho.

> Any user who later asks to install the port might receive that
> pre-compiled archive. So it is important to increase the revision if
> what you've done will affect the contents of the port, regardless how
> few seconds have passed since your last commit.

What we want is users having the binary archive matching their Portfile,
so if there's no or low chance the user might already have the new
Portfile (or even see the Portfile in it's intermediate state at all)
imho there is no need to have the binary archive rebuilt.

In the end all thoese mails aren't worth the effort anyway, because we
only support the most recent version of a port, effectively making this
a non-issue.

-- 
Clemens Lang