On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 09:09:52PM -0500, Todd Vierling wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
> 
> : > I think we should also set out (in Packages.txt) the occasions and
> : > circumstances in which the revision number should be bumped.
> :
> : Yes. But what exactly is that policy? Anyone want to try putting it into
> : words? :-)
> 
> Whenever a change is made to a package that alters functionality in a
> non-cosmetic way.
> 
> This could entail API changes, integration of bugfix or functionality
> patches from a third party or development branch of the same package, or
> even changing the pathname of an executable.
> 
> This would exclude such things as fixing typos in manpages, making a package
> build properly on a given architecture (where it would just bomb before --
> although if the fix entails changing real code, it'd be a bump)....

I think that even in the cases you described at the end, that we should
bump the PKGREVISION.  Then we can easily check whether a binary package
on ftp.netbsd.org is up-to-date with respect to all fixes, and we can
specify that foo-1.0nb10 builds on sparc64 instead of "check whether your
patch-bf is at least revision 1.19".

	Cheers,

	-- Johnny Lam <jlam@jgrind.org>