From owner-freebsd-ports Fri Mar 31 0:49:35 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61F3637BBF8; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 00:49:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from asami@cs.berkeley.edu) Received: from silvia.hip.berkeley.edu (sji-ca2-07.ix.netcom.com [205.186.212.7]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA16289; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 03:48:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.hip.berkeley.edu (8.9.3/8.6.9) id AAA19490; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 00:48:32 -0800 (PST) To: Kris Kennaway Cc: "David O'Brien" , ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: final call: VERSION variable References: From: asami@FreeBSD.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) Date: 31 Mar 2000 00:48:30 -0800 In-Reply-To: Kris Kennaway's message of "Thu, 30 Mar 2000 22:30:40 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Lines: 19 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.6 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org By the way, I forgot to mention that one of the nice things about the PORTNAME/VERSION change is that we can add an optional REVISION field in the future without screwing up Latest links and all the other stuff, if we decide to go this direction. * From: Kris Kennaway * It needs to be developed further by someone before we could adopt/reject * it, I agree. I only mentioned it because it was related to the topic under * discussion and we were chatting about it the other day on IRC. At this Also, Red Hat does this already. Not that we have to follow suit, but it's not like a totally original (and absurd) idea. I'm not sure if it's really necessary, but we have done some things in the past (often involving shared libraries) that would have had benefited from an additional revision field in the package name. Satoshi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message