Of variants and revbumping.

[Eric A. Borisch]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia <
jeremyhu at macports.org> wrote:

>
> On Sep 16, 2013, at 16:49, Ryan Schmidt <ryandesign at macports.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> True, but someone *could* setup a repository with additional packages for
> non-default variants.
>
> My $0.02 is that I'd do the bump to be on the safe side.
>

If there is a use case (your 'someone could') that is negatively impacted
by not rev-bumping, I'm fine with it.

As I stated from the get-go, anything with a default dependency would
certainly be rev-bumped, but that's two or three of the twenty or so
packages that will be (unnecessarily, for most) rebuilt if I bump
everything. Of course, for any of those that are distributable, the compile
time will be farmed out to the buildbots...

I'll go ahead and bump everything when I get around to committing this
unless there's a uproar. :)

 - Eric
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20130916/9ed01401/attachment.html>