binary packages and Portfile changes

[Ryan Schmidt]

On May 7, 2012, at 10:58, Jeremy Lavergne wrote:

>> No need, usually. The only reason why there's a Portfile in the package is so that the port can define post-deactivate blocks. So if you're adding / removing / changing a port's post-deactivate block, then yes, that would be a reason to increase the revision to get the package rebuilt. But most ports don't have custom post-deactivate blocks.
> 
> One day perhaps self-contained archives/packages. You know the old thread :-)
> 
> But when it comes to knowing if the archive is a perfect match to the request, we could compare the two Portfiles.

As far as I know things are working correctly the way they are today. What problem are you trying to solve? It sounds like you're saying MacPorts should compare the Portfile in the ports tree with the one in the archive, and if they differ, ignore the archive and build from source. If so, I see no reason to do that. If a Portfile change would result in a port needing to be rebuilt, the committer would have increased the revision. And if not, then there's no reason not to use an available archive. For example, just because someone decides to add a modeline or adjust a port's whitespace or formatting is no reason to discard an archive built from the previous Portfile.