From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 1 21:34:27 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32F3C16A409 for ; Mon, 1 May 2006 21:34:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from krion@voodoo.bawue.com) Received: from voodoo.bawue.com (voodoo.bawue.com [212.9.161.119]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B958943D5A for ; Mon, 1 May 2006 21:34:26 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from krion@voodoo.bawue.com) Received: from krion by voodoo.bawue.com with local (Exim 4.61 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Fag2E-000Jvr-QJ; Mon, 01 May 2006 23:34:26 +0200 Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 23:34:26 +0200 From: Kirill Ponomarew To: Andrew Pantyukhin Message-ID: <20060501213426.GB54315@voodoo.bawue.com> References: <20060501193851.GA54315@voodoo.bawue.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-NIC-HDL: KP869-RIPE Keywords: 477273987 Cc: FreeBSD Ports Subject: Re: portversion and distversion - why not? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 21:34:28 -0000 On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 12:06:54AM +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > On 5/1/06, Kirill Ponomarew wrote: > >On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 11:32:55PM +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > >> Portlint says: > >> FATAL: Makefile: either PORTVERSION or DISTVERSION must be specified, not > >> both. > >> > >> Can somebody please explain why? It comes in handy > >> to be able to define illegal distversion instead of redefining > >> the whole distname. B.p.m was designed to handle two > >> different variables in the first place. Should we really > >> abstain from using this functionality? > > > >DISTVERSION is just conform conversion of PORTVERSION, I don't see a > >reason to specify both. > > grrr > > To quote bpm: > PORTVERSION - Version of software. Mandatory when no DISTVERSION is > given. > DISTVERSION - Vendor version of the distribution. > > Now what's so hard to understand here? Portversion is nice > and legal, it tries to increase from version to version, it > follows a number of guidelines imposed by FreeBSD. Now > distversion - is something from vendor's imagination. It can > contain a multitude of not very nice characters, long strings, > bad syntax; it can stay the same across releases (e.g. when > subdir is changing), it can go back and forth... > > Portversion is the version that users and the system see > Distversion is actually _just_ for the purpose of downloading > and building the software > > Conversions between them (both directions are defined in > bpm) are only to ease our live, they do not happen if both > *versions are defined. > > What's so fatal if we use both, huh? Hehe, I can still remember why I committed it into bpm, DISTVERSION was invented to remove the "bogus" port versions like '10Beta2-pre', '20Alpha1', '30_1_20' etc, and convert them into more logical numbers like '10.b2.p', '20.a1', '30.1.20' etc. Therefore I don't quite follow why to have, say, PORTVERSION=10Beta2-pre and DISTVERSION=10Beta2-pre with each other. DISTVERSION actually was *not* intended for the purpose of downloading and building the software. -Kirill