Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:01:44 +0200 From: Neil Blakey-Milner <nbm@mithrandr.moria.org> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Will Andrews <andrews@technologist.com>, James Housley <jim@thehousleys.net>, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Indicating patch levels Message-ID: <20000816120143.A18384@mithrandr.moria.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0008151919200.43132-100000@freefall.freebsd.org>; from kris@FreeBSD.org on Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 07:24:45PM -0700 References: <20000815133048.B4306@argon.gryphonsoft.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0008151919200.43132-100000@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue 2000-08-15 (19:24), Kris Kennaway wrote:
> 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?
I suggested this about 4 months ago, to no replies whatsoever (but I'm
quite used to that).
To quote:
| Hrm, while we're at it, how about one or both of:
| PORT_EPOCH is either empty, or a positive integer reflecting the number
| of times the version number has changed to a lower version due to stupid
| versioning. This is something Debian does.
|
| Ie, if we have a port named foo-120399 (and we had a few like that)
| which later became foo-1.0.1, we'd bump the PORT_EPOCH to 1, and
| carry on from there.
|
| PORT_REVISION is either empty, defaulting to 0, or a positive
| integer reflecting some sort of change in the packages provided or
| required dependencies. If gnomelibs-0.53 depended on libjpeg.so.7,
| but the latest libjpeg port/package now provides libjpeg.so.8, we'd
| have to set PORT_REVISION to make sure this is taken into account.
|
| Another one I've seen is the move from not providing a shared or
| static library to providing it.
|
| Debian represents this as:
|
| [epoch:]packagename_version-revision.
|
| I'd suggest we try:
|
| packagename-version[_revision][:epoch] to remain basically backwards
| compatible, and gain the same playing parameters of possibly the
| leading package management collection.
I doubt it'd require any changes to the package tools, since they don't
have any special version-parsing intelligence.
I believe this is almost necessary to provide the level of
upgradeability that our Debian friends have.
Neil
--
Neil Blakey-Milner
Sunesi Clinical Systems
nbm@mithrandr.moria.org
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?20000816120143.A18384>