Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 19:24:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> To: Will Andrews <andrews@technologist.com> Cc: James Housley <jim@thehousleys.net>, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Indicating patch levels Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0008151919200.43132-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20000815133048.B4306@argon.gryphonsoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Will Andrews wrote:
> Patchlevels are just indicated as a minor version bump. I.e., if
> previous version was 1.6.3, and you now have patchlevel 1.6.3-2, we
> indicate that with "1.6.3.2". Hence:
I don't like this for FreeBSD-specific port changes, like the addition of
a new patch file, or change in compilation defaults. I've been thinking
about this for a few days in regards to upgrading of packages, and more
importantly (for me) how to tell people unambiguously what version of a
package to fetch after a security hole has been fixed.
I don't like bumping the PORTVERSION because it looks like a different
release of the software, which it's not (and may cause confusion if people
talk about the FreeBSD version number to other non-FreeBSD users) - in
fact I tend to agree with the Linux style of appending a hyphenated local
revision number as being the best way to indicate this.
In other words, I'd like to add a LOCALVERSION which should be reset to 0
with each "official" version upgrade, and incremented each time there's a
local change to the content of the port, and packages would be named
according to:
${PORTNAME}-${PORTVERSION}-${LOCALVERSION}
Any other opinions?
Kris
--
In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate.
-- Charles Forsythe <forsythe@alum.mit.edu>
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?Pine.BSF.4.21.0008151919200.43132-100000>