Of variants and revbumping.

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Sep 16, 2013, at 18:41, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote:

> On Sep 16, 2013, at 15:46, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> 
>> On Sep 16, 2013, at 12:54, Eric A. Borisch wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm preparing to commit the changes to mpich that have been discussed on the mailing list [1] and a ticket [2].
>>> 
>>> I will revbump port that depend on mpich by default so new distributable archives can be built.
>>> 
>>> But for other modified ports, I have a quick question of preferences: should I revbump ports that optionally (and not by default) depend on mpich, or just let rev-upgrade catch those?
>>> 
>>> For users installed without the specific (typically +mpich or +mpi) variant selected, the revbump would be a gratuitous rebuild, even though the Portfile has changed in the variant sections to select the newly supplied bin/libs from mpich[-devel]-default...
>>> 
>>> I can go either way -- I'll be modifying the Portfiles already. Is "rev-upgrade will catch it" an acceptable answer?
>> 
>> That's the way I went when I updated gd2 to 2.1.0 recently. I think it's reasonable. What do others think?
> 
> I don't think "rev-upgrade will catch it" is reasonable ... if installed files change in a meaningful way (such as location of linked dependencies), it needs a revbump.  Otherwise the binary packages we ship to customers won't be right.

We are only talking about non-default variants. We don't ship binary packages using non-default variants. When default variants are affected, absolutely the revision should be increased to fix the binary packages.