Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 17:33:58 -0430 From: Andres Perera <andres.perera@zoho.com> To: David DEMELIER <demelier.david@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proposal for new UPDATING format Message-ID: <AANLkTikFRMqFNFA7Jcmk%2BOCpko_CeB_0jc%2BFxJitr2YD@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTine=NVea7Gxa=Mi2j5qruFSSDjEbmZLygvPPrpT@mail.gmail.com> References: <AANLkTinU%2BkU0mT_cD_DJwH=0HyKh%2BBGC0mXc71vmVThD@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTine=NVea7Gxa=Mi2j5qruFSSDjEbmZLygvPPrpT@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 12:43 PM, David DEMELIER <demelier.david@gmail.com> wrote: > > Not a bad idea, the problem is that the file UPDATING does not speak > always for a package, sometime it's just some information that are not > specific to a package. > Well, that could be addressed by having a stricter way of populating AFFECTS. Either category/port-version or category/ to express that it affects more than one. Global concerns can be aptly named "all" and be filtered by the tool by date. Until a more machine parsable format is established throughout the fields, I think it'd be good to formalize VERSION since the entries usually end up mentioning the version anyway -- just not in a fashion that tools can easily extract. Andres > -- > Demelier David >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTikFRMqFNFA7Jcmk%2BOCpko_CeB_0jc%2BFxJitr2YD>