The config files should not be deleted during deinstall. In my patch: 1. Backup config files during deinstall; 2. Fix wrong plist problem when "NOPORTDOCS" defined; 3. Fix pkg_add permission problem, described in PR: ports/57235 4. Bump PORTREVISION. How-To-Repeat: [1] After "make deinstall" or "pkg_delete", all config files will be delete. [2] make install -DNOPORTDOCS [3] make package, then pkg_add
Responsible Changed From-To: freebsd-ports-bugs->hq I'll handle this.
Kang, Are you sure that a PORTREVISION bump is needed? We should indeed only bump PORTREVISION if the upgrade provides new features and/or fixes to users that already have the current version installed. And it seems like the changes here are all related to install/deinstall actions. I'm not saying that we shouldn't bump it though. I'm just trying to figure out exactly why it's needed. Also, I would prefer to have all @unexec stuff stderr redirect to /dev/null but I'll do this myself before I commit the patch, no need to send another patch. Herve
> -----Original Message----- > From: Herve Quiroz [mailto:herve.quiroz@esil.univ-mrs.fr] > Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 10:11 AM > > Kang, > > Are you sure that a PORTREVISION bump is needed? We should > indeed only bump PORTREVISION if the upgrade provides new > features and/or fixes to users that already have the current > version installed. And it seems like the changes here are all > related to install/deinstall actions. Accouding to the porters-handbook section 5.2.2.1 PORTREVISION, Examples of when PORTREVISION should be bumped: The 1st example: Addition of patches to correct security vulnerabilities, bugs, or to add new functionality to the port. The 3rd example: Changes in the packing list... I think backing up config files is a bug fix and a new important functionality to the port of jakarta-tomcat3, for doing that, I've changed the packing list. Further more the 2nd and 3rd fixes also modify the packing list. > I'm not saying that we shouldn't bump it though. I'm just > trying to figure out exactly why it's needed. > from the end of section 5.2.2.1: A rule of thumb is to ask yourself whether a change committed to a port is something which everyone would benefit from having (either because of an enhancement, fix, or by virtue that the new package will actually work at all), and weigh that against that fact that it will cause everyone who regularly updates their ports tree to be compelled to update. If yes, the PORTREVISION should be bumped. In my opinion, those fixes are really benefit for all users of jakarta-tomcat3, that is why I said the PORTREVISION should be bumped. Kang
State Changed From-To: open->closed Commited. Thanks for your contribution. BTW, you were right with the PORTREVISION bumping stuff. I just didn't understand the reason at the time. Now after a good rest, everything is clear in my mind again :)