From owner-freebsd-ports  Wed Mar 29 23:22:32 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from ms.tokyo.jcom.ne.jp (ms.tokyo.jcom.ne.jp [210.234.123.18])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 53E7037B772; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 23:22:29 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from knu@idaemons.org)
Received: from daemon.local.idaemons.org (pc343042.tokyo.jcom.ne.jp [203.140.143.42])
	by ms.tokyo.jcom.ne.jp (8.9.1/3.7W 03/13/00) with ESMTP id QAA07620;
	Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:22:27 +0900 (JST)
Received: by daemon.local.idaemons.org (8.9.3/3.7W) id QAA79565; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:21:55 +0900 (JST)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:21:54 +0900
Message-ID: <8666u4dist.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org>
From: "Akinori -Aki- MUSHA" <knu@idaemons.org>
To: kris@FreeBSD.ORG
Cc: asami@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: final call: VERSION variable
In-Reply-To: In your message of "Wed, 29 Mar 2000 20:38:22 -0800 (PST)"
	<Pine.BSF.4.21.0003292033520.32828-100000@freefall.freebsd.org>
References: <200003300345.TAA12994@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
	<Pine.BSF.4.21.0003292033520.32828-100000@freefall.freebsd.org>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.2.18 (Please Forgive Me) EMIKO/1.13.12 (Euglena sociabilis) FLIM/1.13.2 (Kasanui) APEL/10.2 MULE XEmacs/21.1 (patch 9) (Canyonlands) (i386--freebsd)
Organization: Associated I. Daemons
X-PGP-Public-Key: finger knu@FreeBSD.org
X-PGP-Fingerprint: 1BEF D9B2 BABD 25D7 659A  FD08 89C2 F3BE E981 4E16
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by EMIKO 1.13.12 - "Euglena sociabilis")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

Hi,

At Wed, 29 Mar 2000 20:38:22 -0800 (PST),
Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.ORG> wrote:
> Ultimately we should have a PORTVERSION as well, which gets incremented

Probably we can use "$Revision$" for that purpose?  And I'd prefer
PORTREVISION to PORTVERSION because the latter would be sort of
confusing with VERSION.

> Also a good idea, except it should probably be +VERSION for consistency
> (how would you look up the version except by searching the directory
> entries for a match on ver-* and parsing it?)

I agree with your +VERSION idea.  Then we could put
`${VERSION}-${PORTREVISION}' in it.

/var/db/${PORTNAME}/
		+VERSION	: contains `${VERSION}-${PORTREVISION}'
		+COMMENT
		+CONTENTS
		+DESC
		+REQUIRED_BY
		... (as now)


I also think that each PORTNAME _must_ be unique to each port.  Bad
examples might be like ones below:

1)	ftp/ncftp		ncftp-1.9.5
	ftp/ncftp2		ncftp-2.4.3
	(ftp/ncftp3 is good because of its pkgname `ncftp3-3.0.0')

2)	shells/zsh		zsh-3.0.7
	shells/zsh-devel	zsh-3.1.6

and my namazu2 and vmware2 port, too, for now. :-(

They should be corrected as follows:

1')	ftp/ncftp		ncftp-1.9.5
	ftp/ncftp2		ncftp2-2.4.3

2')	shells/zsh		zsh-3.0.7
	shells/zsh-devel	zsh-devel-3.1.6


Then +REQUIRED_BY would hold just portnames without any version
numbers so we don't need to regenerate it on future upgrade.


I believe this rule is absolutely required on introducing version
comparison mechanism to easily implement upgrade installation.

(See pkg_version in trouble when two or more versions exist having one
common portname at the same time)

In addition, versioning rules should be written more strictly on the
handbook for ease of comparison.

-- 
                           /
                          /__  __
                         / )  )  ) )  /
Akinori -Aki- MUSHA aka / (_ /  ( (__(  <knu@idaemons.org>

"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice."


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message