Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:18:01 -0800 From: Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org> To: Dmitry Marakasov <amdmi3@amdmi3.ru> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Port of SVN snapshot, PORTVERSION choice Message-ID: <EBAE0BEF-FE4C-4C3F-9334-67438C4DB65A@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20080116002913.GB58416@hades.panopticon> References: <20080116002913.GB58416@hades.panopticon>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jan 15, 2008, at 16:29 , Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Another question: I'm going to make a port based on SVN revision of
> certain software - what PORTVERSION should I use? Authors suggested
> "r${REVISION}", but that seem uncommon for FreeBSD ports, so I think
> more of "0.0.${REVISION}". Any examples of ports of SVN snapshots?
For the myriad of local ports we ($REALJOB) have that relate to SVN
(or CVS for that matter) snapshots, as opposed to actual releases, we
tend to use "0.[date-of-snap]", eg: 0.20080116.
Then we move on to 1.x, 2.x, and so on as things are "released". I
prefer using the date as opposed to a SCM-specific revision number, to
maintain consistency, and also give an immediate piece of information
as to the date at which the snapshot was taken.
If there's a chance that the software in question could be released
as, say, 0.1, then you'd want to go to 0.0.[date-of-snap] to be on the
safe side, and allow portupgrade et al to work correctly.
-aDe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?EBAE0BEF-FE4C-4C3F-9334-67438C4DB65A>