From vd@datamax.bg  Wed Sep 14 11:09:28 2005
Return-Path: <vd@datamax.bg>
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2AC116A41F;
	Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:09:27 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from vd@datamax.bg)
Received: from jengal.datamax.bg (jengal.datamax.bg [82.103.104.21])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B15D43D48;
	Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:09:27 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from vd@datamax.bg)
Received: from sinanica.bg.datamax (sinanica.bg.datamax [192.168.10.1])
	by jengal.datamax.bg (Postfix) with QMQP
	id 9A03487CC; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:09:26 +0300 (EEST)
Received: (nullmailer pid 38677 invoked by uid 1004);
	Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:09:26 -0000
Message-Id: <20050914110926.GA38619@sinanica.bg.datamax>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:09:26 +0300
From: Vasil Dimov <vd@datamax.bg>
Reply-To: vd@datamax.bg
To: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org
Cc: steve@ion.lu, lawrance@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Update port: sysutils/rdiff-backup to 1.0.1
X-Send-Pr-Version: 3.113

>Number:         86108
>Category:       ports
>Synopsis:       Update port: sysutils/rdiff-backup to 1.0.1
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       non-critical
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    lawrance
>State:          closed
>Quarter:        
>Keywords:       
>Date-Required:  
>Class:          update
>Submitter-Id:   current-users
>Arrival-Date:   Wed Sep 14 11:10:17 GMT 2005
>Closed-Date:    Sat Oct 08 07:14:59 GMT 2005
>Last-Modified:  Sat Oct 08 07:14:59 GMT 2005
>Originator:     Vasil Dimov
>Release:        FreeBSD 5.4-STABLE i386
>Organization:
DataMax
>Environment:

>Description:

Update rdiff-backup from 0.12.8 to 1.0.1:
* pkg-message not needed anymore, 1.0.x originated from the development
  branch 0.13.x, btw there is no development branch anymore
* this update includes the change in ports/84571 and ports/84978 which
  have not yet been commited
* no need to set DOCSDIR to its default value
* sync pkg-plist

I guess maintainer timeout should be considered, as we did not get
reply from steve@ion.lu (maintainer) for:
* ports/84571 (opened 05 Aug, closed 20 Aug, maint. was CC'd)
* ports/84978 (opened 16 Aug, still open, maint. was CC'd)
* subsequent question from Sam Lawrance about ports/84978 on 31 Aug.

>How-To-Repeat:

>Fix:

--- rdiff-backup_0.12.8-1.0.1.diff begins here ---
diff -urN --exclude=CVS rdiff-backup-0.12.8/Makefile rdiff-backup/Makefile
--- rdiff-backup-0.12.8/Makefile	Wed Sep 14 13:36:10 2005
+++ rdiff-backup/Makefile	Wed Sep 14 13:48:33 2005
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
 #
 
 PORTNAME=	rdiff-backup
-PORTVERSION=	0.12.8
+PORTVERSION=	1.0.1
 PORTEPOCH=	1
 CATEGORIES=	sysutils
 MASTER_SITES=	http://savannah.nongnu.org/download/rdiff-backup/
@@ -23,7 +23,6 @@
 MAN1=		rdiff-backup.1
 
 DOCFILES=	CHANGELOG README COPYING FAQ.html
-DOCSDIR=	${PREFIX}/share/doc/${PORTNAME}
 
 post-install:
 	${INSTALL_MAN} ${WRKSRC}/rdiff-backup.1 ${PREFIX}/man/man1
@@ -32,7 +31,6 @@
 .for file in ${DOCFILES}
 	${INSTALL_DATA} ${WRKSRC}/${file} ${DOCSDIR}
 .endfor
-	@${CAT} ${PKGMESSAGE}
 .endif
 
 .include <bsd.port.mk>
diff -urN --exclude=CVS rdiff-backup-0.12.8/distinfo rdiff-backup/distinfo
--- rdiff-backup-0.12.8/distinfo	Wed Sep 14 13:36:10 2005
+++ rdiff-backup/distinfo	Wed Sep 14 13:44:21 2005
@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
-MD5 (rdiff-backup-0.12.8.tar.gz) = 1a16b8e484948942705c7121f394d812
-SIZE (rdiff-backup-0.12.8.tar.gz) = 126592
+MD5 (rdiff-backup-1.0.1.tar.gz) = 765e8c97c696eeb7b19006d9ed0967be
+SIZE (rdiff-backup-1.0.1.tar.gz) = 149637
diff -urN --exclude=CVS rdiff-backup-0.12.8/pkg-descr rdiff-backup/pkg-descr
--- rdiff-backup-0.12.8/pkg-descr	Wed Sep 14 13:36:10 2005
+++ rdiff-backup/pkg-descr	Wed Sep 14 13:39:28 2005
@@ -9,4 +9,4 @@
 rdiff-backup and ssh to securely back a hard drive up to a remote location,
 and only the differences will be transmitted.
 
-WWW: http://rdiff-backup.stanford.edu/
+WWW: http://www.nongnu.org/rdiff-backup/
diff -urN --exclude=CVS rdiff-backup-0.12.8/pkg-message rdiff-backup/pkg-message
--- rdiff-backup-0.12.8/pkg-message	Wed Sep 14 13:35:03 2005
+++ rdiff-backup/pkg-message	Thu Jan  1 02:00:00 1970
@@ -1,5 +0,0 @@
-### ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ###
-### Upgrading to unstable 0.13.x uses a different archive format.          ###
-### So if you downgrade from 0.13.x you HAVE TO re-do the initial seed!    ###
-### Sorry for the inconvenience.                                           ###
-### ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ###
diff -urN --exclude=CVS rdiff-backup-0.12.8/pkg-plist rdiff-backup/pkg-plist
--- rdiff-backup-0.12.8/pkg-plist	Wed Sep 14 13:36:10 2005
+++ rdiff-backup/pkg-plist	Wed Sep 14 13:39:28 2005
@@ -37,6 +37,12 @@
 %%PYTHON_SITELIBDIR%%/rdiff_backup/connection.py
 %%PYTHON_SITELIBDIR%%/rdiff_backup/connection.pyc
 %%PYTHON_SITELIBDIR%%/rdiff_backup/connection.pyo
+%%PYTHON_SITELIBDIR%%/rdiff_backup/eas_acls.py
+%%PYTHON_SITELIBDIR%%/rdiff_backup/eas_acls.pyc
+%%PYTHON_SITELIBDIR%%/rdiff_backup/eas_acls.pyo
+%%PYTHON_SITELIBDIR%%/rdiff_backup/fs_abilities.py
+%%PYTHON_SITELIBDIR%%/rdiff_backup/fs_abilities.pyc
+%%PYTHON_SITELIBDIR%%/rdiff_backup/fs_abilities.pyo
 %%PYTHON_SITELIBDIR%%/rdiff_backup/increment.py
 %%PYTHON_SITELIBDIR%%/rdiff_backup/increment.pyc
 %%PYTHON_SITELIBDIR%%/rdiff_backup/increment.pyo
@@ -82,6 +88,9 @@
 %%PYTHON_SITELIBDIR%%/rdiff_backup/statistics.py
 %%PYTHON_SITELIBDIR%%/rdiff_backup/statistics.pyc
 %%PYTHON_SITELIBDIR%%/rdiff_backup/statistics.pyo
+%%PYTHON_SITELIBDIR%%/rdiff_backup/user_group.py
+%%PYTHON_SITELIBDIR%%/rdiff_backup/user_group.pyc
+%%PYTHON_SITELIBDIR%%/rdiff_backup/user_group.pyo
 %%PORTDOCS%%%%DOCSDIR%%/CHANGELOG
 %%PORTDOCS%%%%DOCSDIR%%/COPYING
 %%PORTDOCS%%%%DOCSDIR%%/FAQ.html
--- rdiff-backup_0.12.8-1.0.1.diff ends here ---
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-ports-bugs->lawrance 
Responsible-Changed-By: lawrance 
Responsible-Changed-When: Wed Sep 14 11:57:39 GMT 2005 
Responsible-Changed-Why:  
Take it 

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=86108 

From: Sam Lawrance <boris@brooknet.com.au>
To: vd@datamax.bg
Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org, lawrance@freebsd.org, steve@ion.lu
Subject: Re: ports/86108: Update port: sysutils/rdiff-backup to 1.0.1
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 01:48:26 +1000

 On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:09:26 +0300
 Vasil Dimov <vd@datamax.bg> wrote:
 > I guess maintainer timeout should be considered, as we did not get
 > reply from steve@ion.lu (maintainer) for:
 > * ports/84571 (opened 05 Aug, closed 20 Aug, maint. was CC'd)
 > * ports/84978 (opened 16 Aug, still open, maint. was CC'd)
 > * subsequent question from Sam Lawrance about ports/84978 on 31 Aug.
 
 Yes, I will apply the timeout from ports/84978 to this PR.  No sense in
 pushing it back another 14 days just because you've done more work.
 
 Before I go ahead though, Peter Schuller (maintainer of
 rdiff-backup-devel) noted that this version and the last version of
 rdiff-backup are incompatible.  Since people may have the old version
 in use for some while, he suggested we might want to keep the
 rdiff-backup port around for a while (perhaps, for example, by creating
 rdiff-backup1).  Have a think about it; I'll email you both soon and
 we'll decide a way to go.

[inserting into Audit Trail from misfiled PR ports/86712:

Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:34:48 +0200
From: Steve Clement <steve@ion.lu>
 
 This is cool as well. Saves me the work.
 
 STeve C
 -- 
 ION Network Solutions
 mailto:steve@ion.lu
 http://www.ion.lu
]

From: Vasil Dimov <vd@datamax.bg>
To: Sam Lawrance <boris@brooknet.com.au>
Cc: peter.schuller@infidyne.com, FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org, steve@ion.lu
Subject: Re: ports/86108: Update port: sysutils/rdiff-backup to 1.0.1
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 17:05:02 +0300

 On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 01:48:26AM +1000, Sam Lawrance wrote:
 > On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:09:26 +0300
 > Vasil Dimov <vd@datamax.bg> wrote:
 > > I guess maintainer timeout should be considered, as we did not get
 > > reply from steve@ion.lu (maintainer) for:
 > > * ports/84571 (opened 05 Aug, closed 20 Aug, maint. was CC'd)
 > > * ports/84978 (opened 16 Aug, still open, maint. was CC'd)
 > > * subsequent question from Sam Lawrance about ports/84978 on 31 Aug.
 > 
 > Yes, I will apply the timeout from ports/84978 to this PR.  No sense in
 > pushing it back another 14 days just because you've done more work.
 > 
 > Before I go ahead though, Peter Schuller (maintainer of
 > rdiff-backup-devel) noted that this version and the last version of
 > rdiff-backup are incompatible.  Since people may have the old version
 > in use for some while, he suggested we might want to keep the
 > rdiff-backup port around for a while (perhaps, for example, by creating
 > rdiff-backup1).  Have a think about it; I'll email you both soon and
 > we'll decide a way to go.
 
 This is what we have:
 
 [time]
   |
   v
   |
 0.12.x   (stable) in sysutils/rdiff-backup
 0.13.x (unstable) in sysutils/rdiff-backup-devel
   |
   v
   |
 1.0.1 (stable), originated from 0.13.x
 (no unstable branch)
 
 My suggestion would be to upgrade rdiff-backup port from 0.12.x to 1.0.1
 and to drop rdiff-backup-devel port - this better reflects the actual
 situation. BUT we have the problem with incompatibilities - the old and
 the new version of the rdiff-backup port (0.12.x and 1.0.1) would be
 incompatible.
 
 One possible solution is to:
 * rename rdiff-backup to rdiff-backup-old, rdiff-backup-012 or something
   else, or even drop it - just like the developers of rdiff-backup did
   with the 0.12.x branch.
 * rename rdiff-backup-devel to rdiff-backup and upgrade it from 0.13.x
   to 1.0.1
 We have the problem, mentioned above: rdiff-backup goes from 0.12.x to 1.0.1
 
 Another solution:
 * create rdiff-backup1 port for 1.x branch and mark rdiff-backup and
   rdiff-backup-devel as deprecated/for deletion and forward users to
   rdiff-backup1
 * wait
 * delete rdiff-backup and rdiff-backup-devel
 * possibly wait
 * rename rdiff-backup1 to rdiff-backup
 This seems more difficult, but less destructive.

From: Peter Schuller <peter.schuller@infidyne.com>
To: Vasil Dimov <vd@datamax.bg>
Cc: Sam Lawrance <boris@brooknet.com.au>, FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org,
	steve@ion.lu
Subject: Re: ports/86108: Update port: sysutils/rdiff-backup to 1.0.1
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:54:03 +0200

 I would just like to point out another possible complication, namely
 that, based on the phrasing on the rdiff-backup website, there may
 be an unstable branch of rdiff-backup again in the future. One might
 want to keep this in mind when deciding on a course of action, to
 avoid having to "re-arrange" the rdiff-backup(-devel) port(s) again
 in the future.
 
 -- 
 / Peter Schuller, InfiDyne Technologies HB
 
 PGP userID: 0xE9758B7D or 'Peter Schuller <peter.schuller@infidyne.com>'
 Key retrieval: Send an E-Mail to getpgpkey@scode.org
 E-Mail: peter.schuller@infidyne.com Web: http://www.scode.org
 

From: Steve Clement <steve@ion.lu>
To: Peter Schuller <peter.schuller@infidyne.com>
Cc: Vasil Dimov <vd@datamax.bg>, Sam Lawrance <boris@brooknet.com.au>, 
 FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ports/86108: Update port: sysutils/rdiff-backup to 1.0.1
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:39:43 +0200

 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
 --------------enig61D992181A3493710D8C75C5
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
 
 Peter Schuller wrote:
 
 >I would just like to point out another possible complication, namely
 >that, based on the phrasing on the rdiff-backup website, there may
 >be an unstable branch of rdiff-backup again in the future. One might
 >want to keep this in mind when deciding on a course of action, to
 >avoid having to "re-arrange" the rdiff-backup(-devel) port(s) again
 >in the future.
 >  
 >
 Ok I was reading posts upside down, sorry for that.
 
 I agree to Peter's thought.
 
 In this case there is no ideal way. A sysadmin should anyways not do
 something like:
 
 portupgrade -Rra
 
 I usually do: portupgrade -Rran |grep +
 
 Analyze the output and the do the updates that are "safe" automatically
 and the updates that need manually backupping etc manually.
 
 Updating the port to 1.0.1 would be the way to go.
 
 cheers,
 
 Steve C
 
 
 -- 
 ION Network Solutions
 Steve Clement
 Unix System Administrator
 209, rue des Romains
 L-8041 Bertrange
 Tel: +352 261 276-2
 Fax: +352 261 276-9
 mailto:steve@ion.lu
 http://www.ion.lu
 
 
 --------------enig61D992181A3493710D8C75C5
 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
 Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
 
 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
 Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
 
 iD8DBQFDPArAMH8DIBsiCrgRA3TDAKCDDEMn+AlYm8vjNPdZPZX+aUhvOwCgp0Bk
 Tl3WdfVAuMLJv+9AvUkOXRI=
 =R5nk
 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
 --------------enig61D992181A3493710D8C75C5--

From: Sam Lawrance <boris@brooknet.com.au>
To: Steve Clement <steve@ion.lu>
Cc: Peter Schuller <peter.schuller@infidyne.com>, Vasil Dimov
 <vd@datamax.bg>,
        FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ports/86108: Update port: sysutils/rdiff-backup to 1.0.1
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 16:29:34 +1000

 On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:39:43 +0200
 Steve Clement <steve@ion.lu> wrote:
 
 > Peter Schuller wrote:
 > 
 > >I would just like to point out another possible complication, namely
 > >that, based on the phrasing on the rdiff-backup website, there may
 > >be an unstable branch of rdiff-backup again in the future. One might
 > >want to keep this in mind when deciding on a course of action, to
 > >avoid having to "re-arrange" the rdiff-backup(-devel) port(s) again
 > >in the future.
 > >  
 > >
 > Ok I was reading posts upside down, sorry for that.
 > 
 > I agree to Peter's thought.
 > 
 > In this case there is no ideal way. A sysadmin should anyways not do
 > something like:
 > 
 > portupgrade -Rra
 > 
 > I usually do: portupgrade -Rran |grep +
 > 
 > Analyze the output and the do the updates that are "safe"
 > automatically and the updates that need manually backupping etc
 > manually.
 > 
 > Updating the port to 1.0.1 would be the way to go.
 
 I've had some feedback from a couple other users who think the port
 should just be updated, and I tend to agree.
 
 How's this:
 
 - send a little heads-up to ports@
 - update rdiff-backup port to 1.0.1 and add information about the
 incompatibility to ports/UPDATING
 - retire rdiff-backup-devel, and add an entry to ports/MOVED so that
 rdiff-backup-devel users are migrated to 1.0.1 of rdiff-backup.
 
 

From: Vasil Dimov <vd@datamax.bg>
To: Sam Lawrance <boris@brooknet.com.au>
Cc: Steve Clement <steve@ion.lu>, Peter Schuller <peter.schuller@infidyne.com>, FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ports/86108: Update port: sysutils/rdiff-backup to 1.0.1
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 10:56:14 +0300

 On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 04:29:34PM +1000, Sam Lawrance wrote:
 > On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:39:43 +0200
 > Steve Clement <steve@ion.lu> wrote:
 > 
 > > Peter Schuller wrote:
 > > 
 > > >I would just like to point out another possible complication, namely
 > > >that, based on the phrasing on the rdiff-backup website, there may
 > > >be an unstable branch of rdiff-backup again in the future. One might
 > > >want to keep this in mind when deciding on a course of action, to
 > > >avoid having to "re-arrange" the rdiff-backup(-devel) port(s) again
 > > >in the future.
 > > >  
 > > >
 > > Ok I was reading posts upside down, sorry for that.
 > > 
 > > I agree to Peter's thought.
 > > 
 > > In this case there is no ideal way. A sysadmin should anyways not do
 > > something like:
 > > 
 > > portupgrade -Rra
 > > 
 > > I usually do: portupgrade -Rran |grep +
 > > 
 > > Analyze the output and the do the updates that are "safe"
 > > automatically and the updates that need manually backupping etc
 > > manually.
 > > 
 > > Updating the port to 1.0.1 would be the way to go.
 > 
 > I've had some feedback from a couple other users who think the port
 > should just be updated, and I tend to agree.
 > 
 > How's this:
 > 
 > - send a little heads-up to ports@
 OK
 
 > - update rdiff-backup port to 1.0.1 and add information about the
 > incompatibility to ports/UPDATING
 OK
 
 > - retire rdiff-backup-devel, and add an entry to ports/MOVED so that
 > rdiff-backup-devel users are migrated to 1.0.1 of rdiff-backup.
 
 Maybe it's better not to rush deleting rdiff-backup-devel, but instead
 mark it as "IGNORE=please migrate to rdiff-backup" for some time and
 then delete it, because:
 1. In case -devel branch is released (again) by the rdiff-backup
    developers (like Peter Schuller suggested), avoid deleting/creating
    the same port multiple times.
 2. Help users understand what's happening, (I gues few of them will
    start digging in ports/MOVED to see where their port disappeared :)
 3. This is generally less destructive operation than just dropping
    the port without notice.

From: Sam Lawrance <boris@brooknet.com.au>
To: vd@datamax.bg
Cc: Steve Clement <steve@ion.lu>,
        Peter Schuller
 <peter.schuller@infidyne.com>,
        FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ports/86108: Update port: sysutils/rdiff-backup to 1.0.1
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 18:14:13 +1000

 On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 10:56:14 +0300
 Vasil Dimov <vd@datamax.bg> wrote:
 
 > On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 04:29:34PM +1000, Sam Lawrance wrote:
 > > On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:39:43 +0200
 > > Steve Clement <steve@ion.lu> wrote:
 > > 
 > > > Peter Schuller wrote:
 > > > 
 > > > >I would just like to point out another possible complication,
 > > > >namely that, based on the phrasing on the rdiff-backup website,
 > > > >there may be an unstable branch of rdiff-backup again in the
 > > > >future. One might want to keep this in mind when deciding on a
 > > > >course of action, to avoid having to "re-arrange" the
 > > > >rdiff-backup(-devel) port(s) again in the future.
 > > > >  
 > > > >
 > > > Ok I was reading posts upside down, sorry for that.
 > > > 
 > > > I agree to Peter's thought.
 > > > 
 > > > In this case there is no ideal way. A sysadmin should anyways not
 > > > do something like:
 > > > 
 > > > portupgrade -Rra
 > > > 
 > > > I usually do: portupgrade -Rran |grep +
 > > > 
 > > > Analyze the output and the do the updates that are "safe"
 > > > automatically and the updates that need manually backupping etc
 > > > manually.
 > > > 
 > > > Updating the port to 1.0.1 would be the way to go.
 > > 
 > > I've had some feedback from a couple other users who think the port
 > > should just be updated, and I tend to agree.
 > > 
 > > How's this:
 > > 
 > > - send a little heads-up to ports@
 > OK
 > 
 > > - update rdiff-backup port to 1.0.1 and add information about the
 > > incompatibility to ports/UPDATING
 > OK
 > 
 > > - retire rdiff-backup-devel, and add an entry to ports/MOVED so that
 > > rdiff-backup-devel users are migrated to 1.0.1 of rdiff-backup.
 > 
 > Maybe it's better not to rush deleting rdiff-backup-devel, but instead
 > mark it as "IGNORE=please migrate to rdiff-backup" for some time and
 > then delete it, because:
 > 1. In case -devel branch is released (again) by the rdiff-backup
 >    developers (like Peter Schuller suggested), avoid deleting/creating
 >    the same port multiple times.
 
 It's very easy to resurrect it from CVS history if the need arises.
 
 > 2. Help users understand what's happening, (I gues few of them will
 >    start digging in ports/MOVED to see where their port disappeared :)
 
 MOVED is used by tools like portupgrade, so there should be no
 problems.  From what I gather, rdiff-backup-devel users will simply be
 moved to the release version of what they have been using all this time.
 
 > 3. This is generally less destructive operation than just dropping
 >    the port without notice.
 
 Not if there's a suitable alternative available.  And IMO it's better
 to move users from rdiff-backup-devel to rdiff-backup now. If another
 development branch is started later and there are incompatibilites,
 they'll cop it then.
 
 What do you think?

From: Vasil Dimov <vd@datamax.bg>
To: Sam Lawrance <boris@brooknet.com.au>
Cc: Steve Clement <steve@ion.lu>, Peter Schuller <peter.schuller@infidyne.com>, FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ports/86108: Update port: sysutils/rdiff-backup to 1.0.1
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 11:26:30 +0300

 On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 06:14:13PM +1000, Sam Lawrance wrote:
 > On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 10:56:14 +0300
 > Vasil Dimov <vd@datamax.bg> wrote:
 > 
 > > On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 04:29:34PM +1000, Sam Lawrance wrote:
 > > > On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:39:43 +0200
 > > > Steve Clement <steve@ion.lu> wrote:
 > > > 
 > > > > Peter Schuller wrote:
 > > > > 
 > > > > >I would just like to point out another possible complication,
 > > > > >namely that, based on the phrasing on the rdiff-backup website,
 > > > > >there may be an unstable branch of rdiff-backup again in the
 > > > > >future. One might want to keep this in mind when deciding on a
 > > > > >course of action, to avoid having to "re-arrange" the
 > > > > >rdiff-backup(-devel) port(s) again in the future.
 > > > > >  
 > > > > >
 > > > > Ok I was reading posts upside down, sorry for that.
 > > > > 
 > > > > I agree to Peter's thought.
 > > > > 
 > > > > In this case there is no ideal way. A sysadmin should anyways not
 > > > > do something like:
 > > > > 
 > > > > portupgrade -Rra
 > > > > 
 > > > > I usually do: portupgrade -Rran |grep +
 > > > > 
 > > > > Analyze the output and the do the updates that are "safe"
 > > > > automatically and the updates that need manually backupping etc
 > > > > manually.
 > > > > 
 > > > > Updating the port to 1.0.1 would be the way to go.
 > > > 
 > > > I've had some feedback from a couple other users who think the port
 > > > should just be updated, and I tend to agree.
 > > > 
 > > > How's this:
 > > > 
 > > > - send a little heads-up to ports@
 > > OK
 > > 
 > > > - update rdiff-backup port to 1.0.1 and add information about the
 > > > incompatibility to ports/UPDATING
 > > OK
 > > 
 > > > - retire rdiff-backup-devel, and add an entry to ports/MOVED so that
 > > > rdiff-backup-devel users are migrated to 1.0.1 of rdiff-backup.
 > > 
 > > Maybe it's better not to rush deleting rdiff-backup-devel, but instead
 > > mark it as "IGNORE=please migrate to rdiff-backup" for some time and
 > > then delete it, because:
 > > 1. In case -devel branch is released (again) by the rdiff-backup
 > >    developers (like Peter Schuller suggested), avoid deleting/creating
 > >    the same port multiple times.
 > 
 > It's very easy to resurrect it from CVS history if the need arises.
 > 
 > > 2. Help users understand what's happening, (I gues few of them will
 > >    start digging in ports/MOVED to see where their port disappeared :)
 > 
 > MOVED is used by tools like portupgrade, so there should be no
 > problems.  From what I gather, rdiff-backup-devel users will simply be
 > moved to the release version of what they have been using all this time.
 > 
 > > 3. This is generally less destructive operation than just dropping
 > >    the port without notice.
 > 
 > Not if there's a suitable alternative available.  And IMO it's better
 > to move users from rdiff-backup-devel to rdiff-backup now. If another
 > development branch is started later and there are incompatibilites,
 > they'll cop it then.
 > 
 > What do you think?
 
 Great, just do it.
 
State-Changed-From-To: open->closed 
State-Changed-By: lawrance 
State-Changed-When: Sat Oct 8 07:14:46 GMT 2005 
State-Changed-Why:  
Committed, thanks all! 

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=86108 
>Unformatted:
