Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 19:13:29 +0200 From: David DEMELIER <demelier.david@gmail.com> To: 849372@gmail.com Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proposal for new UPDATING format Message-ID: <AANLkTine=NVea7Gxa=Mi2j5qruFSSDjEbmZLygvPPrpT@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinU%2BkU0mT_cD_DJwH=0HyKh%2BBGC0mXc71vmVThD@mail.gmail.com> References: <AANLkTinU%2BkU0mT_cD_DJwH=0HyKh%2BBGC0mXc71vmVThD@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2010/8/19 Andres Perera <andres.perera@zoho.com>: > The idea is to add a VERSION field so that automated tools can display > the entries prior performing the actual upgrade. > > Filtering by date isn't exact enough, so the new field will correspond > with the first version of the port were the "problem" occurs. > > Without getting into implementation details, the port management tools > could use a line similar to:: > > % pkg_updating clang-1.2 > > Matching the version with whatever it's installing... > Not a bad idea, the problem is that the file UPDATING does not speak always for a package, sometime it's just some information that are not specific to a package. -- Demelier David
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTine=NVea7Gxa=Mi2j5qruFSSDjEbmZLygvPPrpT>