Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 20 Sep 2018 09:02:17 +0200
From:      Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org>
To:        koobs@FreeBSD.org, Franco Fichtner <franco@lastsummer.de>
Cc:        FreeBSD Ports <ports@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: net/ntopng: version jump by an order of magnitude
Message-ID:  <e5afd17a-264e-db0d-1129-cd6a86f80d46@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <cd6bfc78-8006-0333-0832-ad0095cce921@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <044E02B5-BE6D-4D90-96A4-B2C555707F1C@lastsummer.de> <cd6bfc78-8006-0333-0832-ad0095cce921@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/20/18 5:32 AM, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
> On 20/09/2018 6:40 am, Franco Fichtner wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Small question:
>>
>> https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-ports/commit/0585180d
>>
>> ... has a typo in the version number which was an ISO date
>> originally.  Are we using this new date format now or is there
>> going to be a PORTEPOCH amendment?
> 

Terribly sorry I did not catch the typo before committing!

> Up to the maintainer ultimately.
> 
> To avoid PORTEPOCH, either the typo'd datestamp scheme (0XX for month)
> would need to continue until 3.7, or an alternate scheme created that is
> both meaningful and > than (pkg version -t old new) the current value.
> 
> Or fix the typo and add PORTEPOCH.
> 
> Personally, I'd go the first option as it's only a minor typo that
> doesn't affect ongoing existing-scheme version updates, and is the more
> transient of the two (PORTEPOCH lives forever, bad scheme only lasts
> till 3.7).

Yes, I think this is what I'll be doing. There seems to be no real harm
in that.

BTW they are skipping odd numbers, so next version is likely to be 3.8.

-- 
Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org>



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?e5afd17a-264e-db0d-1129-cd6a86f80d46>