From owner-freebsd-ports Mon Mar 20 19:13:31 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1B4837BACA for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 19:13:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from asami@cs.berkeley.edu) Received: from silvia.hip.berkeley.edu (sji-ca6-109.ix.netcom.com [205.186.213.109]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA05762; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:13:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.hip.berkeley.edu (8.9.3/8.6.9) id TAA96083; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 19:13:22 -0800 (PST) To: mharo@area51.fremont.ca.us Cc: FreeBSD Ports Team Subject: Re: Version Numbering Question References: <20000320154048.A86305@area51.fremont.ca.us> From: asami@freebsd.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) Date: 20 Mar 2000 19:13:16 -0800 In-Reply-To: Michael Haro's message of "Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:40:49 -0800" Message-ID: Lines: 17 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.6 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * From: Michael Haro * Hi, I noticed lots of ports violating the handbook guidelines and using * versioning like -1.2.3pl4. * * For ports that *have* version numbers and then patch levels, should * we allow 'pl' in the version or change the version number in the ports * to something like 1.2.3p4? Patch levels are just part of version numbers. I think "1.2.3.4" will be just fine, since it is unambiguous (nobody in their right mind will release 1.2.3pl4 and 1.2.3.4 of the same software) and have the nice property of having version number components separated by periods (which is useful in guessing which of two version number components is newer). Satoshi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message