Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 21:02:48 +0800 From: "Thomas Zander" <thomas.e.zander@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Please test: mplayer 1.0 rc2 Message-ID: <786602c60710260602o6ec5342fw3e4206bb5ad73cd@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <471F1C83.5010209@commit.it> References: <786602c60710210500xd709756x4cb714666a1c39d5@mail.gmail.com> <18203.24753.63146.314861@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <786602c60710210757o29413e79i297f30e639db6a24@mail.gmail.com> <471F1C83.5010209@commit.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 24/10/2007, Angelo Turetta <aturetta@commit.it> wrote: > May I ask you: if the software is at 1.0.rc2, why the port version is > set at 0.99.xx? Because a healthy numbering scheme (as in 'numbers') is more useful for correct version tracking than that ludicrous approach some people are insisting on. > You might want to make some test on your own, but in my experience using > a version like 1.0.r2 is supported by the port subsystem. I mean, if you > label a version as 1.0.r2, the final version 1.0 should be considered > greater than 1.0.r2 (and so allow users to upgrade automatically). Well, let's see what happens when we test some mplayer version strings: $ pkg_version -t 0.6 0.9 < $ pkg_version -t 0.9 1.0pre7 < $ pkg_version -t 1.0pre7 1.0pre7try2 > *kaboom* Either a software *is* 1.0 or it is not. Therefore, as long as I am going to maintain that port, I will try to stick with sensible numbers. Riggs
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?786602c60710260602o6ec5342fw3e4206bb5ad73cd>