From owner-freebsd-ports Sat Aug 19 23:11: 2 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1A1137B423; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 23:11:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (kris@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id XAA95340; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 23:11:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: kris owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 23:11:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway To: Neil Blakey-Milner Cc: Will Andrews , James Housley , freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Indicating patch levels In-Reply-To: <20000816120143.A18384@mithrandr.moria.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Neil Blakey-Milner wrote: > I suggested this about 4 months ago, to no replies whatsoever (but I'm > quite used to that). It's often hard to get people to commit to the difficult discussions :-) > | I'd suggest we try: > | > | packagename-version[_revision][:epoch] to remain basically backwards > | compatible, and gain the same playing parameters of possibly the > | leading package management collection. This sounds fine to me..the epoch field would be rarely used, but it's essential for those ports that require it. We'd have to teach things like pkg_version about it or it wouldn't affect the numerical comparison, but that's easy enough. Kris -- In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate. -- Charles Forsythe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message