Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 12:16:13 +0200 From: Neil Blakey-Milner <nbm@mithrandr.moria.org> To: Akinori -Aki- MUSHA <knu@idaemons.org> Cc: kris@FreeBSD.ORG, asami@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: final call: VERSION variable Message-ID: <20000330121612.B48838@mithrandr.moria.org> In-Reply-To: <8666u4dist.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org> References: <200003300345.TAA12994@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0003292033520.32828-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> <8666u4dist.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu 2000-03-30 (16:21), Akinori -Aki- MUSHA wrote:
> Probably we can use "$Revision$" for that purpose? And I'd prefer
> PORTREVISION to PORTVERSION because the latter would be sort of
> confusing with VERSION.
$Revision$ isn't interpreted by our CVS commands. I think
PORT_REVISION is better than PORT_VERSION too, though.
Maybe just REVISION, but I'd prefer less namespace pollution ;)
> I agree with your +VERSION idea. Then we could put
> `${VERSION}-${PORTREVISION}' in it.
I'd prefer for a backwards compatible means of showing the revision,
but I can't think of anything immediately offhand. Theoretically
you can't put '_' in a version number, so 1.5_1 could be workable.
Of course, some ports probably use '_' in their version numbers.
[ interesting stuff snipped ]
> 2') shells/zsh zsh-3.0.7
> shells/zsh-devel zsh-devel-3.1.6
>
> Then +REQUIRED_BY would hold just portnames without any version
> numbers so we don't need to regenerate it on future upgrade.
Good point. It could probably work, except for packages that'll
require either zsh-3.0.7 or zsh-devel-3.1.6, but we can't support
that now anyway. It would only work if we were meticulously
consistent. It might be an idea to look at the way other people
handle this, particularly Debian.
> I believe this rule is absolutely required on introducing version
> comparison mechanism to easily implement upgrade installation.
>
> (See pkg_version in trouble when two or more versions exist having one
> common portname at the same time)
pkg_version has had patches since sometime last year from me, which
deal with multiple installed versions pretty well. Some guy offered
to merge it with other changes, and it has since disappeared.
> In addition, versioning rules should be written more strictly on the
> handbook for ease of comparison.
Agreed.
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?20000330121612.B48838>