From owner-freebsd-ports  Wed Apr 30 13:30:14 1997
Return-Path: <owner-ports>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA16053
          for ports-outgoing; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 13:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usc.usc.unal.edu.co ([200.21.26.65])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA15996
          for <ports@freebsd.org>; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 13:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unalmodem07.usc.unal.edu.co by usc.usc.unal.edu.co (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03)
          id AA1095312; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 13:24:30 -0400
Message-Id: <33679BAB.5FA@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 12:21:15 -0700
From: "Pedro F. Giffuni" <pgiffuni@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co>
Organization: Universidad Nacional de Colombia
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: Eivind Eklund <eivind@dimaga.com>
Cc: ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Ports/Version Numbers
References: <3.0.32.19970430093850.00fc1c10@dimaga.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Eivind Eklund wrote:
> 
> Why are we using version numbers as parts of our port-names?  This allow
> overwriting part of an existing port (e.g. samba 1.9.14) with a new version
> of the same port, and with no warnings.  Are there any benefits beyond the
> fact that the presently installed version number is obvious (which we
> probably could fix anyway)?
> 
1) Not all ports report their version. It's good to know the current
version so you can pkg_delete the previous one.
2) The maintainer may want to port a beta and want's to make it
distinguishable from the release.

The problem you mention and the so called "fix" is not obvious and has
caused problems with Tkl/Tk and other ports before. AIX's pkg_add
replaces existing binaries but leaves a "*.orig" copy of the first
package, JIC you want to go back.

	--Pedro.


> Eivind