binary packages and Portfile changes

[Ryan Schmidt]

On May 9, 2012, at 09:48, Daniel J. Luke wrote:

> On May 7, 2012, at 2:32 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> human error?

Sure. You know of a way to take humans out of the equation?


>> 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.
> 
> it might be nice to automate things to the point where any change to a portfile re-creates the archive (especially if the buildbots aren't overloaded).

That doesn't entirely help. Unless the revision is increased, "port outdated" will not tell a user that they should rebuild, nor will rebuilding do anything unless the user forces it.

The status quo remains: maintainers must remember to increase the revision when they commit a change that users should receive, same as it's always been. I don't think making maintainers remember this simple rule is too much to ask.