Subject: Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc
To: None <>
From: Jeremy C. Reed <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 01/03/2004 13:35:01
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, Rene Hexel wrote:

>    Bumping the PKGREVISION to just indicate to users that they
> should update one package on one platform is IMHO very bad
> practice!  If people are having problems with the older
> version of libtiff, then all they have to do is update that
> package and everything is well.

Please see my other email where I mentioned about testing all the 500
packages to make sure that old version of tiff (libraries and utilities)
work fine for packages built using this newest tiff. I guess we could just
assume they work and fix as they come up. (Please note that I did this
because I was asked to do this.)

>    Can we please try to be more sensible when bumping package
> versions?  More often than not I have found myself recompiling
> almost my entire installed package base instead of being able
> to do any real package work in the recent past.

I agree that there should be a better way.

That is why I asked about this a few times well before I made the change.

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Hubert Feyrer wrote:

> PKGREVISION is a counter that tells (roughly) the number user-visible
> changes to a pkg, when the distfile was not changes.

Okay. I will check to see if that is documented.

> Using it for something else is a gross hack, and if there's a need to
> express something else, go and add a new handle to do such things, and
> don't overload existing interfaces.

Something like: pkg-1.2.3nb3pr4  -- where "pr4" stands for "package
revision 4"?

So "nb" is used like you say above and "pr" is just used for these
dependency package bumps.

I don't know what "nb" means. Maybe "NetBSD or maybe "nota bene".

Anyone volunteering in adding a "new handle to do such things"?

   Jeremy C. Reed