From owner-svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 29 14:47:38 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.ORG Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id 6ECC2106; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 14:47:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 14:47:38 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Jan Beich Cc: Bryan Drewery , Lars Engels , ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.ORG, shadowbq@gmail.com Subject: Re: svn commit: r384872 - in head/security: . passivedns passivedns/files Message-ID: <20150429144738.GA20325@FreeBSD.org> References: <201504272033.t3RKXcGl079169@svn.freebsd.org> <553FD751.6060408@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 14:47:38 -0000 On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 09:30:20PM +0200, Jan Beich wrote: > Bryan Drewery writes: > > > On 4/27/2015 3:33 PM, Lars Engels wrote: > > > >> +DISTVERSION= ${GH_TAG} > > [...] > >> +GH_TAG= a6c7e26 > > > > Actually this is not valid either. As soon as a new commit is done the > > port may "go backwards". > > > Commit hashses are not valid versions. Dates are. Correct. However, instead of using 2015xxyy one might want to prefix it with something, e.g. 0.0.d2015xxyy to make it easy to switch to a "real" version in the future. Also see below. > git describe --tags output is no worse than appending svn revision to > the nearest tag. DISTFILES was already partially correct. > > $ pkg version -t 1.1.3 1.1.3-60 > < > > > A PORTEPOCH bump will be needed as well after fixing this. > > Not really. bsd.port.mk assumes any letter as a pre-release suffix. > > # PORTVERSION=a6c7e26 > $ pkg version -t a6c7e26 0 > < > > # DISTVERSION=a6c7e26 > $ pkg version -t a6.c7.e26 0 Using any part of hash as DISTVERSION is inherently bogus, no matter what trick one might attempt to employ. Versions increase monotonically, while hashes are completely arbitrary (cannot be sorted to map to timeline). > > For example: > > > > PORTVERSION= 20150428 > > Please, don't advise unprefixed dates. If one later wants to go back to > a tag it'd require PORTEPOCH bump. Correct; although some software might indeed use date as their version; that is, they do not assume it will become 1.0 or anything sane in the future. All these issues happen because people often do not care enough to give their stuff proper version numbers. :( In these cases, it becomes our (packagers) job to assign meaningful version number and think about the room for expansion. ./danfe