Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 15:11:44 -0400 From: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Version number of openjdk6 port Message-ID: <201104081511.47184.jkim@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4D9F1E05.4070900@FreeBSD.org> References: <4D9F1E05.4070900@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 08 April 2011 10:39 am, John Baldwin wrote: > Please consider using a better version number for the openjdk6 > port. Right now it uses a version number of 'b20_7' which due to > the way package version works, is considered less than 0: > > % pkg_version -t 0 b20_7 > > > Why does this matter? cfengine uses 'pkg_info -E pkg_name>0' to > test if a package is installed. Then, I would say cfengine is broken. "0" in that version match string is package dependent, not major, minor, or whatever. For example: %pkg_info -E 'avahi>0.6.20' avahi-0.6.29 %pkg_info -E 'openjdk6>b0' openjdk6-b22_4 %pkg_info -E 'mplayer>1.0.r0' mplayer-1.0.r20110329 > For example: > > % pkg_info -E 'bash>0' > bash-4.1.9 > > This does not work for openjdk6 since the version number is less > than zero. > > % pkg_info -E 'openjdk6>0' > % pkg_info -E 'openjdk6*' > openjdk6-b20_7 > > Perhaps you can just add the '6' to the version number always so it > looks more sane? This would match what python does for example: > > python26-2.6.6 An interpreted object-oriented programming > language python27-2.7.1_1 An interpreted object-oriented > programming language python31-3.1.3 An interpreted > object-oriented programming language > > If the package name were 'openjdk6-6.b20_7' then cfengine would > handle the package just fine. java/openjdk7 uses openjdk-7.0.N where N is build number. I am not sure which is better. :-/ Jung-uk Kim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201104081511.47184.jkim>