Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 10:16:42 +0200 From: Neil Blakey-Milner <nbm@mithrandr.moria.org> To: "Scot W. Hetzel" <hetzels@westbend.net> Cc: bmah@CA.Sandia.GOV, Mike Meyer <mwm@phone.net>, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: install newer version over old one... Message-ID: <19991009101642.A80651@rucus.ru.ac.za> In-Reply-To: <007801bf1204$9c607700$8dfee0d1@westbend.net> References: <199910082208.PAA74143@nimitz.ca.sandia.gov> <007801bf1204$9c607700$8dfee0d1@westbend.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri 1999-10-08 (22:15), Scot W. Hetzel wrote: > Then the ssh2 port needs to have it's package name changed to ssh2-2.0.13. No, it shouldn't. I mean, at one stage we had vim, and vim5, where vim was version 4, and vim5 was version 5. You can't expect to have a vim-4.3.2 package and a vim5-5.0.1 package. What we really need is a mechanism to show the scope of upgrades - whether ssh-2.0.0 _really_ upgrades ssh-1.2.27. > This is where being able to set a variable (CONFLICTS) would allow you to > specify which software can't have multiple software versions installed. Similar idea, yes. > The port would have to have a naming convention of: > > <package name>-<version>[-<patch level>] Yes, but don't use "-", the last "-" tells us the version - maybe use '#' or ',' or something like that. (unless you have a better idea of where to find out the version number?) Theoretically our names are: <package name>-<compiled options>-<version> So far, for options with versions we use: <package name>-<first option>+<second option>-<package \ version>+<first option version>+<second option version> Neil -- Neil Blakey-Milner nbm@rucus.ru.ac.za To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19991009101642.A80651>