Rev bumping mpi dependents

[Sean Farley]

Joshua Root <jmr at macports.org> writes:

> On 2016-7-21 09:24 , Brandon Allbery wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Sean Farley <sean at macports.org
>> <mailto:sean at macports.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     OpenMPI just released 2.0 which will change the name of the libraries.
>>     I'm guessing I should revbump all the dependents to force a rebuild but
>>     is this something that `port rev-upgrade` should handle?
>>
>>
>> I think you can get into trouble with the automatic rev-upgrade catching
>> it, if it causes an upgrade for other reasons to fail? At the very least
>> it could be inefficient by causing multiple rounds of rebuilding
>> triggered during the rev-upgrade at the end of a normal upgrade.
>
> The biggest reason to rev bump is that if you don't, the archives are 
> useless. They get downloaded and installed, then rev-upgrade immediately 
> detects that the linking is broken and rebuilds from source.

Ah, of course, good point.

> If the original question was about whether the rev bumping should be 
> automated, well, maybe. We could certainly run rev-upgrade in report 
> mode on all a port's dependents after it is updated. Do we then want the 
> system automatically committing a rev bump? I'm not so sure. It might be 
> better to just email a warning to the maintainers.

One day, I'd like bots that try to update a port automatically and send
the patch to the maintainers. Hopefully, this would include rev bumping
but that's a far off dream right now.

> A concept of an archive revision as distinct from a port revision might 
> be useful here.

Yeah, that's not a bad idea either.