Maintainer update of mail/mutt-devel: - Fix mutt's tmp-file-naming to fix syntax highlightning for the vim editor. - Add the WITHOUT_MUTT_ICONV knob and add dependency on iconv if that knob is not defined. PRs 63192 and 65887 can be closed, after this has been committed.
Responsible Changed From-To: freebsd-ports-bugs->krion I'll take it.
State Changed From-To: open->closed Committed, thanks!
Gentlemen, Are you sure the port revision should not be bumped upon those changes? IMHO it should because the changes affect the final product. The same question applies to the related PR ports/66443. -- Yar
Hi, On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 07:07:49PM +0400, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > Are you sure the port revision should not be bumped upon those > changes? IMHO it should because the changes affect the final > product. The same question applies to the related PR ports/66443. I hadn't the feeling that everyone would benefit from this patch. -Kirill
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 08:53:46PM +0200, Kirill Ponomarew wrote: > > > Are you sure the port revision should not be bumped upon those > > changes? IMHO it should because the changes affect the final > > product. The same question applies to the related PR ports/66443. > > I hadn't the feeling that everyone would benefit from this > patch. FreeBSD Porter's Handbook reads: Examples of when PORTREVISION should be bumped: * Addition of patches to correct security vulnerabilities, bugs, or to add new functionality to the port. * Changes to the port Makefile to enable or disable compile-time options in the package. ... This quotation makes clear that PORTREVISION should have been bumped in this case. -- Yar
Hi, On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 01:17:43AM +0400, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > FreeBSD Porter's Handbook reads: > > Examples of when PORTREVISION should be bumped: > * Addition of patches to correct security vulnerabilities, bugs, or to > add new functionality to the port. > * Changes to the port Makefile to enable or disable compile-time options > in the package. > ... > > This quotation makes clear that PORTREVISION should > have been bumped in this case. Porter's Handbook also says: 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. The changes which were made are: - Fix mutt's tmp-file-naming to fix syntax highlightning for the vim editor. Not everybody uses vim as editor for mutt, so bumping PORTREVISION for non-vim users is meaningless. - Add the WITHOUT_MUTT_ICONV knob and add dependency on iconv if that knob is not defined. This new knob doesn't affect the users who installed mutt earlier. -Kirill
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 11:40:32PM +0200, Kirill Ponomarew wrote: > > On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 01:17:43AM +0400, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > > > FreeBSD Porter's Handbook reads: > > > > Examples of when PORTREVISION should be bumped: > > * Addition of patches to correct security vulnerabilities, bugs, or to > > add new functionality to the port. > > * Changes to the port Makefile to enable or disable compile-time options > > in the package. > > ... > > > > This quotation makes clear that PORTREVISION should > > have been bumped in this case. > > Porter's Handbook also says: > > 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. It's more to a personal issue of choosing the lesser evil. But see below. > The changes which were made are: > > - Fix mutt's tmp-file-naming to fix syntax highlightning for > the vim editor. > > Not everybody uses vim as editor for mutt, so bumping > PORTREVISION for non-vim users is meaningless. But how the vim users (which are not small in number) are supposed to know that the bug has been fixed if PORTREVISION is not bumped? It's an acceptable price for using software developed actively--most fixes you get with a new version are for bugs you have never noticed by yourself. > - Add the WITHOUT_MUTT_ICONV knob and add dependency on iconv > if that knob is not defined. > > This new knob doesn't affect the users who installed mutt > earlier. Not quite. As my PR on the issue showed, mutt could fail to record its dependency on libiconv. Such a failure would lead to rather unsettling things like broken recursive port upgrades et cetera. I am not going to argue over this rather minor question any more. I've shown my arguments and now I'll agree to any decision of yours. Thank you. -- Yar