-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005, Thomas Klausner wrote:

>On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 09:34:03PM -0500, Jim Wise wrote:
>> It is visible to a user setting up the package for the first time (as it
>> affects the default behavior, and thus reduces the chance that you'll
>> need to set up a custom config file).  It is invisible to users
>> upgrading -- the users who are served by bumping PKGREVISION for changes
>> which do affect them, and badly disserved by bumping PKGREVISION -- as
>> you just did -- for invisible changes, thus spamming their pkg_chk
>> output.
>
>I think you're forgetting the users who install a package for the
>first time. If they install the binary package, and there is no
>PKGREVISION bump, how are they supposed to know how much they have
>to configure it?
>
>It is a new version because it has different features from the
>previous one, and we usually try to keep these apart.

If we provided documentation anywhere saying ``here's how you have to 
configure this package, but it changed after PKG_REVISION n'', this 
would make sense.  But without doing that work, we don't get this 
benefit -- and we certainly _do_ get the harm that pkg_chk has become 
nearly useless these days, due to constant PKG_REVISION bumps for 
invisible or barely-visible changes.


>To get back to your original question from the first mail:
>> I really don't think a change in a packages default installed
>> configuration qualifies.
>>
>> Do you?
>
>Yes, I do. I guess this is where the main difference lies between
>our points of view. :)

Indeed.  I'll now leave it up to others to weigh the pros and cons of 
each approach and reach a final policy.  :-)

- -- 
				Jim Wise
				jwise@draga.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFCPFL9pRpI6SYACmIRAvPiAJoDX/0Y+5/UgSFctcM5B6O5L9+ONACfaeou
cmz9i2C18CLtuzSL5S8bdUQ=
=Tg0h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----