devel/libparserutils: update to 0.2.4

[fernape]

Summary

Reported by portscout

Bumping PORTREVISION for dependent ports

Test Plan

• portlint -AC OK
• poudriere builds for {10.4,11.1}{amd64,i386}, 12i386 OK
• poudriere builds for dependent ports in {10.4,11.1}{amd64,i386} OK

[mat]

devel/libparserutils/Makefile

25

Why +=?

[fernape]

Replace unnecessary += operator

[sunpoet]

I see no need to bump PORTREVISION for dependent ports.

[fernape]

In D16954#362233, @sunpoet wrote:

I see no need to bump PORTREVISION for dependent ports.

.so library changes version:

in pkg-plist:

lib/libparserutils.so.%%VERSION%%

 # pkg info -l -F libparserutils-0.2.4.txz | grep so
        /usr/local/lib/libparserutils.so
        /usr/local/lib/libparserutils.so.0
        /usr/local/lib/libparserutils.so.0.2.4
root@10_4amd64-default:/wrkdirs/usr/ports/devel/libparserutils/work/pkg #

[sunpoet]

In D16954#362244, @fernape wrote:

In D16954#362233, @sunpoet wrote:

I see no need to bump PORTREVISION for dependent ports.

.so library changes version:

in pkg-plist:

lib/libparserutils.so.%%VERSION%%

 # pkg info -l -F libparserutils-0.2.4.txz | grep so
        /usr/local/lib/libparserutils.so
        /usr/local/lib/libparserutils.so.0
        /usr/local/lib/libparserutils.so.0.2.4
root@10_4amd64-default:/wrkdirs/usr/ports/devel/libparserutils/work/pkg #

If the shlib is changed (e.g. from libparserutils.so.0 to libparserutils.so.1), you'll have to bump PORTREVISION of dependent ports.
It tells everyone to "rebuild dependent ports" to link against the new one.

But not in this case.

No matter it is libparserutils.so.0.2.4 or libparserutils.so.0.20.40, the linker still uses /usr/local/lib/libparserutils.so.0 before and after this update.
Nothing is changed.
There's no need to bump/rebuild dependent ports.

[fernape]

In D16954#362358, @sunpoet wrote:

In D16954#362244, @fernape wrote:

In D16954#362233, @sunpoet wrote:

I see no need to bump PORTREVISION for dependent ports.

.so library changes version:

in pkg-plist:

lib/libparserutils.so.%%VERSION%%

 # pkg info -l -F libparserutils-0.2.4.txz | grep so
        /usr/local/lib/libparserutils.so
        /usr/local/lib/libparserutils.so.0
        /usr/local/lib/libparserutils.so.0.2.4
root@10_4amd64-default:/wrkdirs/usr/ports/devel/libparserutils/work/pkg #

If the shlib is changed (e.g. from libparserutils.so.0 to libparserutils.so.1), you'll have to bump PORTREVISION of dependent ports.
It tells everyone to "rebuild dependent ports" to link against the new one.

But not in this case.

No matter it is libparserutils.so.0.2.4 or libparserutils.so.0.20.40, the linker still uses /usr/local/lib/libparserutils.so.0 before and after this update.
Nothing is changed.
There's no need to bump/rebuild dependent ports.

I might have misinterpreted the documentation then and being too enthusiastic bumping PORTREVISION I suppose.

Sorry for the rebuilding.

[tcberner]

In D16954#362410, @fernape wrote:

In D16954#362358, @sunpoet wrote:

In D16954#362244, @fernape wrote:

In D16954#362233, @sunpoet wrote:

I see no need to bump PORTREVISION for dependent ports.

.so library changes version:

in pkg-plist:

lib/libparserutils.so.%%VERSION%%

 # pkg info -l -F libparserutils-0.2.4.txz | grep so
        /usr/local/lib/libparserutils.so
        /usr/local/lib/libparserutils.so.0
        /usr/local/lib/libparserutils.so.0.2.4
root@10_4amd64-default:/wrkdirs/usr/ports/devel/libparserutils/work/pkg #

If the shlib is changed (e.g. from libparserutils.so.0 to libparserutils.so.1), you'll have to bump PORTREVISION of dependent ports.
It tells everyone to "rebuild dependent ports" to link against the new one.

But not in this case.

No matter it is libparserutils.so.0.2.4 or libparserutils.so.0.20.40, the linker still uses /usr/local/lib/libparserutils.so.0 before and after this update.
Nothing is changed.
There's no need to bump/rebuild dependent ports.

I might have misinterpreted the documentation then and being too enthusiastic bumping PORTREVISION I suppose.

Sorry for the rebuilding.

A bump too much is better than one too few -- so keep that enthusiasm.

[tcberner]

Sorry, @swills already updated it in the meantime in Ports r479003

[fernape]

In D16954#363817, @tcberner wrote:

Sorry, @swills already updated it in the meantime in Ports r479003

No worries. Thanks for the review though :-)

[fernape]

Already updated by @swills