Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 09:02:17 +0200 From: Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org> To: koobs@FreeBSD.org, Franco Fichtner <franco@lastsummer.de> Cc: FreeBSD Ports <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: net/ntopng: version jump by an order of magnitude Message-ID: <e5afd17a-264e-db0d-1129-cd6a86f80d46@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <cd6bfc78-8006-0333-0832-ad0095cce921@FreeBSD.org> References: <044E02B5-BE6D-4D90-96A4-B2C555707F1C@lastsummer.de> <cd6bfc78-8006-0333-0832-ad0095cce921@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/20/18 5:32 AM, Kubilay Kocak wrote: > On 20/09/2018 6:40 am, Franco Fichtner wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Small question: >> >> https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-ports/commit/0585180d >> >> ... has a typo in the version number which was an ISO date >> originally. Are we using this new date format now or is there >> going to be a PORTEPOCH amendment? > Terribly sorry I did not catch the typo before committing! > Up to the maintainer ultimately. > > To avoid PORTEPOCH, either the typo'd datestamp scheme (0XX for month) > would need to continue until 3.7, or an alternate scheme created that is > both meaningful and > than (pkg version -t old new) the current value. > > Or fix the typo and add PORTEPOCH. > > Personally, I'd go the first option as it's only a minor typo that > doesn't affect ongoing existing-scheme version updates, and is the more > transient of the two (PORTEPOCH lives forever, bad scheme only lasts > till 3.7). Yes, I think this is what I'll be doing. There seems to be no real harm in that. BTW they are skipping odd numbers, so next version is likely to be 3.8. -- Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?e5afd17a-264e-db0d-1129-cd6a86f80d46>