Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

security/py-vpn-slice: Add NO_ARCH
ClosedPublic

Authored by driesm on Wed, Nov 24, 7:15 PM.

Details

Summary
security/py-vpn-slice:  Add NO_ARCH

 Approved by:             tbd (mentor), portmgr (blanket)
 Differential Revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D33105

Diff Detail

Repository
R11 FreeBSD ports repository
Lint
Automatic diff as part of commit; lint not applicable.
Unit
Automatic diff as part of commit; unit tests not applicable.

Event Timeline

driesm added reviewers: philip, 0mp.

Just a note: sometimes people don't bump portrevision when adding NO_ARCH (e.g., https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-ports/commit/8918d79d4efdaf2ed1ac659d51e77913f439da7f). The reason is that this is not an important change from the user perspective and perhaps it's not necessary to trigger a package rebuild. However, according to PHB, PORTREVISION must be bumped whenever the contents of the final package change AFAIR. When in doubt, ask fellow committers. As always, if you are unsure about some part of the change, note it in the commit message.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Wed, Nov 24, 10:25 PM

Interesting, would you commit it with or without PORTREVISION bump? Now that you say it, the package is already built for all arches. Adding NO_ARCH and bumping kinda goes against the philosophy of sparing CPU cycles on the cluster, which is ultimately the goal of NO_ARCH. So I'm leaning towards leaving PORTREVISION out in the end. What do you think? I guess bumping wouldn't hurt either given PHB advice.

Personally, I'd skip it. :)

In D33105#748417, @0mp wrote:

Personally, I'd skip it. :)

^^ So to be clear: you would skip bumping PORTREVISION? Right? (like sunpoet's commit)

In D33105#748417, @0mp wrote:

Personally, I'd skip it. :)

^^ So to be clear: you would skip bumping PORTREVISION? Right? (like sunpoet's commit)

Yes! I'd not bump PORTREVISION here.

This comment was removed by driesm.
This revision now requires review to proceed.Fri, Nov 26, 4:50 PM

Fully agree to drop PORTREVISION here. Thanks!

This revision was not accepted when it landed; it landed in state Needs Review.Sat, Nov 27, 4:29 PM
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.