Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 12:39:33 +0200 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@scc.nl> To: Tim Vanderhoek <vanderh@ecf.utoronto.ca> Cc: Nik Clayton <nik@nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk>, obrien@FreeBSD.org, Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: RFC: linux-devel naming (was Re: cvs commit: ports/emulators/linux-base-5.2...) Message-ID: <3785D165.61AC67BC@scc.nl> References: <6514.931435144@axl.noc.iafrica.com> <3784953E.20F2005E@scc.nl> <19990708114649.A67400@dragon.nuxi.com> <3784FA51.639E1920@scc.nl> <19990708223740.A3633@catkin.nothing-going-on.org> <19990708220450.C29714@mad> <3785983D.EF769633@scc.nl> <19990709054512.B84634@mad>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 09, 1999 at 08:35:41AM +0200, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> >
> > I think there's a misunderstanding:
> > linux-devel has nothing to do with versioning. It's the port that adds
> > development tools. With versioning you would get:
>
> -devel is the standard -tag used to imply "latest, and
> hopefully-but-probably-not greatest" version. Sometimes -latest is
> used instead.
Yes, but that doesn't apply to linux_lib and linux_devel. I must say that
-latest is more appropriate in the example given. I associate -devel with
pre-release software.
> >From what you are saying, it sounds like you really want to use a
> -latest or -devel tag on one of the two ports, not that you want to
> use version numbers.
It's not a development version. It's the next release.
> > linux-base-5.2
> > linux-base-6.0
> > linux-devel-5.2
> > linux-devel-6.0
>
> Which is perhaps the reason that "linux_devel" was originally named
> "linux_devel" instead of "linux-devel". I wasn't aware that you were
> planning a "linux-devel". You may want to use the less-common
> "-latest" tag.
This is really confusing :-)
I think linux_devel is called that way because someone once though
underscores were a good idea (like linux_lib).
\begin{RFC}
I've not committed linux-devel yet, so now is the time to decide if it
should be called that way because it replaces linux_devel, or that we
should think of an alternative to avoid confusion with common
-devel/-latest tags.
\end{RFC}
> [From another message].
> > Well, that was originally the case when I included the version number in
> > the ports directory. I got the impression that that was not at all
> > welcome :-) I now have decided to drop the version numbering. Using
> > RH52 as the version is even worse then it now is.
> [...]
> > overwrite/upgrade old versions. I just hope I don't have to say "I told you
> > so" :-)
>
> Version numbers are perfectly welcome in the ports directory. Just do
> it properly... I've given many examples in two different messages
> from the existing ports system on how to do it properly. Pick one
> of them, and follow it, rather than threatening to say "I told you
> so".
>
> Please. :-)
:-)
I've also heard other opinions and choose the one that should please the
largest number of people. If -latest is common and acceptable, then there's
still nothing lost. I can always use -lastest then. But that's for later.
I'll get back to you all on that one.
You may already start that discussion without me, I'll join you when you've
reached a consensus for yourself <duck, run and hide> >:-)
That's it. Please react on the RFC if you feel strongly about the matter.
I'm almost ready to commit the port, so speak up now!
--
Marcel Moolenaar mailto:marcel@scc.nl
SCC Internetworking & Databases http://www.scc.nl/
Amsterdam, The Netherlands tel: +31 20 4200655
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3785D165.61AC67BC>