Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 08:26:01 -0400 From: James Housley <jim@thehousleys.net> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Proposal: PORTREVISION and PORTEPOCH Message-ID: <399FCE59.3CCA07F8@thehousleys.net> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0008200434470.24448-100000@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> PROPOSAL FOR PACKAGE NAMING CONVENTIONS
>
> 0) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
>
> The current versioning scheme for packages built from FreeBSD ports is
> insufficient to convey all the information about the port it is based
> on, since it doesn't reflect FreeBSD-specific
> patches/fixes/alterations made to the generating port.
>
> The proposal is that we adopt two new version numbers: PORTREVISION
> and PORTEPOCH which are used to construct the package name as follows:
>
> ${PORTNAME}-${PORTVERSION}[_${PORTREVISION}][:${PORTEPOCH}]
>
This looks good and meets all the requirements of my initial
discussion. My one concern is PORTVERSION and PORTREVESION are very
smimilar in name. But that is not anything to prevent forward progress.
Looks good.
Thanks
Jim
--
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?399FCE59.3CCA07F8>