Date: 28 Aug 2000 18:19:48 -0700 From: asami@FreeBSD.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) To: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Proposal: PORTREVISION and PORTEPOCH Message-ID: <vqc4s44oocq.fsf@bubble.hip.berkeley.edu> In-Reply-To: Kris Kennaway's message of "Sun, 20 Aug 2000 04:35:50 -0700 (PDT)" References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0008200434470.24448-100000@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>
* PROPOSAL FOR PACKAGE NAMING CONVENTIONS
* The proposal is that we adopt two new version numbers: PORTREVISION
* and PORTEPOCH which are used to construct the package name as follows:
*
* ${PORTNAME}-${PORTVERSION}[_${PORTREVISION}][:${PORTEPOCH}]
I don't know about other shells, but bash seems to think ':' is a
special character (it quotes ':' with a '\' when it does filename
completion). It probably doesn't mean anything, but there's no need
to take chances, can we use another symbol for delimiting
${PORTEPOCH}?
* 1) PORTREVISION
*
* The PORTREVISION variable is a monotonically increasing value which is
* reset to 0 with every increase of PORTVERSION (i.e. every time a new
* official vendor release is made), and appended to the package name if
* non-zero. PORTREVISION is increased each time a change is made to the
* FreeBSD port which significantly affects the content or stucture of
* the derived package.
* 2) PORTEPOCH
*
* From time to time a software vendor or FreeBSD porter will do
* something silly and release a version of their software which is
* actually numerically less than the previous version. An example of
* this is a port which goes from foo-20000801 to foo-1.0 (the former
* will be incorrectly treated as a newer version since 20000801 is a
* numerically greater value than 1).
Yes, I think these two sound fine. However, I have a little concern,
in that it will further fragment the /var/db/pkg directory and make it
harder to people to manage it.
For instance, when a port with a lot of dependents, say, jpeg-6b, is
updated to jpeg-6b_1, the old dependency information will remain in
/var/db/pkg/jpeg-6b/+REQUIRED_BY and be left behind when jpeg-6b_1 is
installed, as there is no check for jpeg-6b when jpeg-6b_1 is added.
This is of course not a problem of this proposal, just a manifest of
an old problem that could be triggerred with having more different
versions in the user's machine. I need someone to work with me on the
pkg_* tools so we'll have better upgrade support, any takers?
Satoshi
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?vqc4s44oocq.fsf>