Subject: Re: PKGREVISION
To: Jeremy C. Reed <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Quentin Garnier <email@example.com>
Date: 10/28/2005 20:28:28
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 11:12:40AM -0700, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> >>>>[...] It is now an error if PKGREVISION appears outside a package
> >That should be a very strong hint to everyone that there's something
> >fundamentally wrong with the idea of forcing all the users of a shared
> >Makefile.common to have their own unique PKGREVISION setting.
> >For example sometimes, maybe even very often, the need to bump the
> >revision is due to a change that's common to (i.e. affects) all those
> >packages which share a Makefile.common and now with this nonsensical
> >rule they _all_ _MUST_ have their PKGREVISION values updated
> >simultaneously, which is more work, more error prone, and all really for
> >no good reason.
> Are you suggesting that we add another variable for the specific package=
> for a revision?
> If we have a Makefile.common that defines the source distfile. Then we=20
> have a client package that is updated (using same Makefile.common) such a=
> installing an extra documentation file, the PKGREVISION bump should be=20
> done just specific for that package.
We could have PKGREVISION line be
(for nb3 + whatever was previously defined).
But that's ill in its own way, too :)
Quentin Garnier - firstname.lastname@example.org - cube@NetBSD.org
"When I find the controls, I'll go where I like, I'll know where I want
to be, but maybe for now I'll stay right here on a silent sea."
KT Tunstall, Silent Sea, Eye to the Telescope, 2004.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----