Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 16:15:31 -0700 From: "Pedro F. Giffuni" <pgiffuni@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> To: Eivind Eklund <eivind@bitbox.follo.net> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports/Version Numbers Message-ID: <33692413.2121@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> References: <3.0.32.19970430093850.00fc1c10@dimaga.com> <33679BAB.5FA@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> <199705011921.VAA23664@bitbox.follo.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Eivind Eklund wrote: > ... > > > with a new version of the same port, and with no warnings. Are > > > there any benefits beyond the fact that the presently installed > > > version number is obvious (which we probably could fix anyway)? > > > I don't know what the 'so called "fix"' is - I was thinking about > either putting a 'VERSION' file in the pkg directory or having a > symlink from the package+version number to the real package directory. > This is exactly the problem, no one has offered a fix :-). The packaging system is standard ..I don't know where it came from but AIX and the other (4.4)*BSDs use ir. I don't know what would be the effect of adding a VERSION file, or up to what point this should be handled by the ports tree. It would certainly not be handled by other BSDs (remember Net and OpenBSD emulate us, and the packages have a value for them). > What do you mean by "not obvious" and has caused problems? Version > number is obvious? I'm fairly certain we can find a way around that. > The "fairly certain" is not obvious...all ideas are welcome, but we can't simply wipe out the version numbers that easy. (BTW, how does RPM manage this ?) Pedro. > > Eivind.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?33692413.2121>