Re: [32446] trunk/dports/sysutils/rpm-devel/Portfile
Perhaps the port revision should also be incremented so that anyone who had beta 3 installed will be informed of the availability of this new beta 4? On Jan 2, 2008, at 03:32, afb@macports.org wrote:
Revision: 32446 http://trac.macosforge.org/projects/macports/changeset/32446 Author: afb@macports.org Date: 2008-01-02 01:32:42 -0800 (Wed, 02 Jan 2008)
Log Message: ----------- port upgrade: final rpm-5.0 beta
Modified Paths: -------------- trunk/dports/sysutils/rpm-devel/Portfile
Modified: trunk/dports/sysutils/rpm-devel/Portfile =================================================================== --- trunk/dports/sysutils/rpm-devel/Portfile 2008-01-02 09:15:58 UTC (rev 32445) +++ trunk/dports/sysutils/rpm-devel/Portfile 2008-01-02 09:32:42 UTC (rev 32446) @@ -16,10 +16,10 @@
homepage http://rpm5.org master_sites ${homepage}/files/rpm/rpm-5.0 -distname rpm-${version}b3 -#distdate 20071222 -checksums md5 444c0ea3399382535f43475d3c934e7a -worksrcdir rpm-${version}b3 +distname rpm-${version}b4 +#distdate 20071231 +checksums md5 89e5d27874724ac01f6ac229e2fa8a22 +worksrcdir rpm-${version}b4 # ### CVS source #fetch.type cvs
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
Perhaps the port revision should also be incremented so that anyone who had beta 3 installed will be informed of the availability of this new beta 4?
Perhaps, but these -devel ports usally build from tip of trunk so they all had revision "0"... --anders
On Jan 2, 2008, at 17:25, Anders F Björklund wrote:
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
Perhaps the port revision should also be incremented so that anyone who had beta 3 installed will be informed of the availability of this new beta 4?
Perhaps, but these -devel ports usally build from tip of trunk so they all had revision "0"...
Ports should never build from tip of trunk or HEAD or similar concepts.....
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
Perhaps, but these -devel ports usally build from tip of trunk so they all had revision "0"...
Ports should never build from tip of trunk or HEAD or similar concepts.....
These do. Not sure what the alternative would be, should I set up a cron job to commit a Portfile daily ? --anders
On Jan 3, 2008, at 05:11, Anders F Björklund wrote:
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
Perhaps, but these -devel ports usally build from tip of trunk so they all had revision "0"...
Ports should never build from tip of trunk or HEAD or similar concepts.....
These do.
But that's not reproducible, and I thought we always wanted that. If I install a specific version of a port today, I should get the same software if I install that same version of that port tomorrow. By fetching from HEAD, you break that assumption.
Not sure what the alternative would be, should I set up a cron job to commit a Portfile daily ?
I see for example that Markus commits a new version of gcc43 every week or so. I hope he tests it before committing, however.
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
Perhaps, but these -devel ports usally build from tip of trunk so they all had revision "0"...
Ports should never build from tip of trunk or HEAD or similar concepts.....
These do.
But that's not reproducible, and I thought we always wanted that. If I install a specific version of a port today, I should get the same software if I install that same version of that port tomorrow. By fetching from HEAD, you break that assumption.
I understand what you are saying. I've only done it on some "-devel" ports, not on any release ports.
Not sure what the alternative would be, should I set up a cron job to commit a Portfile daily ?
I see for example that Markus commits a new version of gcc43 every week or so. I hope he tests it before committing, however.
I will probably move to snapshot versions instead, revision them by date or something like that... --anders
On 5 Jan 2008, at 22:42, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Jan 3, 2008, at 05:11, Anders F Björklund wrote:
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
Perhaps, but these -devel ports usally build from tip of trunk so they all had revision "0"...
Ports should never build from tip of trunk or HEAD or similar concepts.....
These do.
But that's not reproducible, and I thought we always wanted that. If I install a specific version of a port today, I should get the same software if I install that same version of that port tomorrow. By fetching from HEAD, you break that assumption.
Not sure what the alternative would be, should I set up a cron job to commit a Portfile daily ?
I see for example that Markus commits a new version of gcc43 every week or so. I hope he tests it before committing, however.
I do. Regards, -Markus -- Dipl. Inf. (FH) Markus W. Weissmann http://www.macports.org/ http://www.mweissmann.de/
On Jan 5, 2008, at 1:42 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Jan 3, 2008, at 05:11, Anders F Björklund wrote:
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
Perhaps, but these -devel ports usally build from tip of trunk so they all had revision "0"...
Ports should never build from tip of trunk or HEAD or similar concepts.....
These do.
But that's not reproducible, and I thought we always wanted that. If I install a specific version of a port today, I should get the same software if I install that same version of that port tomorrow. By fetching from HEAD, you break that assumption.
This is why I've thought we should not support CVS/SVN fetching in any form -- No checksums, no guaranteed reproducibility.
Landon Fuller wrote:
But that's not reproducible, and I thought we always wanted that. If I install a specific version of a port today, I should get the same software if I install that same version of that port tomorrow. By fetching from HEAD, you break that assumption.
This is why I've thought we should not support CVS/SVN fetching in any form -- No checksums, no guaranteed reproducibility.
Specifying a revision should be reproducible (not verifiably so but), but I'll switch to tarball snapshots... Or delete the ports, whichever works. ("port not found" is guaranteed to be reproducible every single time) --anders
On 6 Jan 2008, at 21:20, Anders F Björklund wrote:
Landon Fuller wrote:
But that's not reproducible, and I thought we always wanted that. If I install a specific version of a port today, I should get the same software if I install that same version of that port tomorrow. By fetching from HEAD, you break that assumption.
This is why I've thought we should not support CVS/SVN fetching in any form -- No checksums, no guaranteed reproducibility.
Specifying a revision should be reproducible (not verifiably so but), but I'll switch to tarball snapshots...
Or delete the ports, whichever works. ("port not found" is guaranteed to be reproducible every single time)
Imho -- at least for "-devel" ports -- cvs/svn fetching is o.k. if at least a date -- in the past ;) -- is supplied. Avoid it if possible, but if it leads to you generating weekly snapshots from some repository, just use cvs/svn fetching. Regards, -Markus -- Dipl. Inf. (FH) Markus W. Weissmann http://www.macports.org/ http://www.mweissmann.de/
Markus Weissmann wrote:
This is why I've thought we should not support CVS/SVN fetching in any form -- No checksums, no guaranteed reproducibility.
Specifying a revision should be reproducible (not verifiably so but), but I'll switch to tarball snapshots...
Or delete the ports, whichever works. ("port not found" is guaranteed to be reproducible every single time)
Imho -- at least for "-devel" ports -- cvs/svn fetching is o.k. if at least a date -- in the past ;) -- is supplied. Avoid it if possible, but if it leads to you generating weekly snapshots from some repository, just use cvs/svn fetching.
Weekly ? No, these all have daily snapshot tarballs generated since they are under development. But I'm cool with moving the ports to my local overlay, as I won't have time to update them... --anders
participants (4)
-
Anders F Björklund
-
Landon Fuller
-
Markus Weissmann
-
Ryan Schmidt