Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 02:18:42 -0300 From: "Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira" <lioux@uol.com.br> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/audio/xsidplay Makefile distinfo Message-ID: <20010805021842.A15514@Fedaykin.here> In-Reply-To: <20010804215856.D8558@xor.obsecurity.org>; from kris@obsecurity.org on Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 09:58:37PM -0700 References: <200108021948.f72Jmig93574@freefall.freebsd.org> <20010804215856.D8558@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 09:58:37PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Thu, Aug 02, 2001 at 12:48:44PM -0700, Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira wrote: > > lioux 2001/08/02 12:48:44 PDT > > > > Modified files: > > audio/xsidplay Makefile distinfo > > Log: > > o Update to 1.6.0 > > o Bump PORTEPOCH since last version (1.6b12) is smaller then newer > > version (1.6.0) > > I wish people wouldn't be so quick to bump PORTEPOCH. PORTEPOCH > increments last forever, there's no way they can be reverted. It's > much better in cases like this to make the new version number such > that it's larger than the previous (for example, 1.6.0.12 in this > case) I think you missed my reply to the commit log message stating that the log read was, in fact, the other way around. The port was updated from 1.6b12 to 1.6.0. Nonetheless, I understand your concern and I will try to address it properly. I know that ppl shouldn't be trigger happy with PORTEPOCH and, as such, I pointed that out for the maintainer which can be seen in the PR log message. Also, I consulted on #bsd**** for a suggestion and none came. I myself totally dislike PORTEPOCH and regret to say that I have one port under my maintainership using it. Careful choice of PORTVERSION when expanding 1.6b12 (previous version number) would have prevented this, e.g., 1.6.b2. However, I was not comfortable on disfiguring PORTVERSION 1.6.0 to achieve the desired effect, so I contacted a larger audience that did not object to PORTEPOCH. Furthermore, this same audience did not produce a good suggestion on a suitable PORTVERSION number, probably unconfortable on disfuring it also. We should emphasize on Porters Handbook the importance of carefull observation when picking PORTVERSION: observing how the author selects his version numbers. Considering that PORTVERSION should always be a increasing number. Said that, I think I should write the aformentioned warning. Specially, teach maintainers on how 'pkg_version -t' works. Nevertheless, I agree that warnings should be raised everytime PORTEPOCH is used to avoid its senseless deployment. -- Mario S F Ferreira - UnB - Brazil - "I guess this is a signature." lioux at ( freebsd dot org | linf dot unb dot br ) flames to beloved devnull@someotherworldbeloworabove.org feature, n: a documented bug | bug, n: an undocumented feature To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010805021842.A15514>