From owner-freebsd-ports Sat Aug 19 9:17:12 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from bmah-freebsd-0.cisco.com (bmah-freebsd-0.cisco.com [171.70.84.42]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62E0037B42C; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 09:17:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from bmah@localhost) by bmah-freebsd-0.cisco.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) id e7JGH7Q30715; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 09:17:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bmah) Message-Id: <200008191617.e7JGH7Q30715@bmah-freebsd-0.cisco.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Will Andrews Cc: Kris Kennaway , Dirk Meyer , freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Indicating patch levels In-Reply-To: <20000817193048.A338@argon.gryphonsoft.com> References: <20000817193048.A338@argon.gryphonsoft.com> Comments: In-reply-to Will Andrews message dated "Thu, 17 Aug 2000 19:30:48 -0500." From: bmah@cisco.com (Bruce A. Mah) Reply-To: bmah@cisco.com X-Face: g~c`.{#4q0"(V*b#g[i~rXgm*w;:nMfz%_RZLma)UgGN&=j`5vXoU^@n5v4:OO)c["!w)nD/!!~e4Sj7LiT'6*wZ83454H""lb{CC%T37O!!'S$S&D}sem7I[A 2V%N&+ X-Image-Url: http://www.employees.org/~bmah/Images/bmah-cisco-small.gif X-Url: http://www.employees.org/~bmah/ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-1129676735P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 09:17:07 -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org --==_Exmh_-1129676735P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii If memory serves me right, Will Andrews wrote: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 01:05:55AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > This is a fair suggestion - bsd.port.mk could only append the suffix if > > it's >0 (I still prefer numerical revisions than arbitrarily-named > > extensions - what happens if you have a secfix and a FreeBSD-specific > > enhancement, do you call it -secfix1-enh1 or something? :) I agree with Kris on the point of numerical revisions, in that it's much easier for pkg_version to parse these rather than the arbitrary revisions. It's also not clear whether, for example, "-enh1-bugfix2" supercedes "-enh2-bugfix1" or not. Maybe this latter issue isn't a problem though. > Important FreeBSD-specific extensions can be given a PATCHLEVEL. I > think something like this is in order: > > .if defined(PATCHLEVEL) && PATCHLEVEL > 0 > PKGNAME=${PORTNAME}-${PORTVERSION}-${PATCHLEVEL} > .else > PKGNAME=${PORTNAME}-${PORTVERSION}-${PATCHLEVEL} > .endif > > Satoshi, I'm in favor of this sort of thing. > > Policy deciding whether to have PATCHLEVEL bumped will need to be > decided. Kris, could you make your proposal on this policy? My $0.2HK [1]: We want PATCHLEVEL to be bumped only for fairly significant events [2]. There's two reasons for this: 1) We probably don't want to give the users the impression that they should be chasing every little "fixed a typo in this diagnostic message" patch. 2) People generating updates for ports (me for instance) are going to forget to do this sometimes anyways. One problem with the bump for "fairly significant events" is that someone needs to determine what "fairly significant" means. For ports with an active MAINTAINER, this shouldn't be a problem. For the others, it might be slightly problematic. Bruce. [1] I'm not actually in .hk, but that's the first creative currency that I could think of. [2] The two that immediately come to mind are fixing a published or soon-to-be-published security vulnerability, or fixing compatability with some underlying library which itself was updated. --==_Exmh_-1129676735P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use MessageID: iqi1V/vSWX6RhfmgASNjQWiHiUkX68l8 iQA/AwUBOZ6zA9jKMXFboFLDEQIM7QCeORWZSJyx9xXJP50zw49XCWQv+SYAn2TN LmwCFkRCIXRr+FgyKD/B+F55 =M23s -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_-1129676735P-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message