Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 23:46:52 +0000 (GMT) From: Adam David <adam@veda.is> To: asami@FreeBSD.org (Satoshi Asami) Cc: adam@FreeBSD.org, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/audio/rplay Makefile ports/audio/rplay/files md5 ports/audio/rplay/patches patch-aa patch-ab Message-ID: <199610092346.XAA00387@veda.is> In-Reply-To: <199610092332.QAA06243@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> from Satoshi Asami at "Oct 9, 96 04:32:57 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> * You must mean the "version required" comment. I am wary to change it for > * subminor version numbers, since I support the view that foo-1.1b5 should > * have a version_required of 1.1 rather than 1.1b5. However, since I remember > * no discussion on this subject and I have not brought it up myself until now, > * I left it unchanged until the policy is clear. > > Um, you sure bring up interesting points. But I don't see any reason > why we should distinguish patchlevels. The port is for a certain > distfile, and the "version required" is supposed to be the easy way to > identify exactly where the port stands. > > Satoshi > I also support the view (where applicable) that version_required should be the *lowest* version that the port is designed for, and should only be bumped to a higher number when sufficient changes warrant it. For instance, a port that is essentially the same over many revisions of the distribution source should have the lowest revision number here that this port supports without substantial reversion to older versions of the porting files. Thus it is _required_ to use a certain minimum release level of the sources, although the port has been tweaked to work with more recently releases. When the changes in the porting files become significant (which is a judgement call), the "version required" is bumped to match the new base level supported. Adam
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199610092346.XAA00387>