x11-fm/filerunner : Update MAINTAINER

[dmgk]

Summary

x11-fm/filerunner : Update MAINTAINER

- Pass maintainership to the submitter

PR:		241285
Submitted by:	Chris Hutchinson <[e-mail]>

Test Plan

poudriere testport: OK (113a, 120a)

[araujo]

You don't need the gratuitous PORTREVISION bump here!

[tz]

In D22051#481655, @araujo wrote:

You don't need the gratuitous PORTREVISION bump here!

araujo is right. For a more detailed explanation: setting or increasing the PORTREVISION will trigger a rebuild of the package. A rebuild is needed if the content of the package changes or its dependencies. Like adding a patch whichout chancing the version or like when a lib used for compiling got an update.

If the change to the port does not change the build binary no PORTREVISION is needed. Typical changes of MAINTAINER, COMMENT or pkg-desc are such changes.

[dmgk]

Don't bump PORTREVISION.

[araujo]

For record only, accepting it from Fukushima, Japan!

[dmgk]

The PHB seems to say otherwise:

PORTREVISION must be increased each time a change is made to the port that changes the generated package in any way.

Changing MAINTAINER does change package metadata (and the generated package as a consequence) and according to the above, needs a PORTREVISION bump. But looking at the svn logs, nobody deems this change "important enough" to warrant a rebuild :)

[araujo]

In D22051#481744, @dmgk wrote:

The PHB seems to say otherwise:

PORTREVISION must be increased each time a change is made to the port that changes the generated package in any way.

Changing MAINTAINER does change package metadata (and the generated package as a consequence) and according to the above, needs a PORTREVISION bump. But looking at the svn logs, nobody deems this change "important enough" to warrant a rebuild :)

I think your interpretation is wrong, I and everybody else don't want build a port or install a new version only because a maintainer variable changed in the Makefile. We never did that and we'll never do. The section that describes the PORTREVISION on PHB gives room for developers to decide when it is necessary to build a new package and I can assure maintainer metadata is not one of them.

[tz]

I see, i shouldn't have written "changed package". Like araujo stated, meta-data are not considered as part of the package. PORTREVISION bumps will rebuild the software from which the package is build. As long as the software contained (!) in the "package" does not change, such a bump is not needed.

Consider this from the scope of the user. Do you want to reinstall thousands of packages because in pkg-desc we changed a typo? The user (normally) does not care about such thinks when managing its software. Such a reinstall can trigger a very expensive process, can span many servers and can need many hours of qa. Changing the maintainer should not trigger such a process.