Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:19:21 -0700 From: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> To: =?utf-8?Q?Martin_Waschb=C3=BCsch?= <martin@waschbuesch.de> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Help with versioning scheme Message-ID: <C655A3CB-8C52-4CB0-A6F4-F34EAD224175@adamw.org> In-Reply-To: <F35F7011-4DDA-4BD4-93FB-BE75ECD49827@waschbuesch.de> References: <F35F7011-4DDA-4BD4-93FB-BE75ECD49827@waschbuesch.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 17 Jan, 2018, at 11:08, Martin Waschbüsch <martin@waschbuesch.de> wrote: > > Hi there, > > I am preparing a patch for a port (archivers/libz4) that I am maintaining. > The versioning scheme upstream originally used was for instance: > > rXXX > e.g. r123 > > When they changed to > > vX.Y.Z > e.g. v1.8.1 > > I had to up PORTEPOCH in order not to get wrong warnings about new > versions available. > > Now, they added a fourth digit to that. > > vV.X.Y.Z > e.g. v1.8.1.2 > > So far so good. Now, the last digit is equivalent to our port revisions. > E.g. the version of the library as declared in the source is still 1.8.1. > > How do I adapt the Makefile that the correct tarball will be downloaded > from git (which contains v1.8.1.2) but either ignore the fourth digit or > use it to represent the port revision? > > Also, would you consider it impolite to (humbly) ask upstream to > (carefully) choose a versioning scheme and stick with it (longterm)? ;-) Hi Martin, You don't want to use the upstream version to represent PORTREVISION. PORTREVISION is for when you need to force rebuilds of the port itself, and so tying it to upstream would make it impossible to bump it ourselves. Why do you need to ignore the fourth digit? It's perfectly valid for our purposes. # Adam -- Adam Weinberger adamw@adamw.org http://www.adamw.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?C655A3CB-8C52-4CB0-A6F4-F34EAD224175>