Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 05:20:17 +0000 From: Koichiro IWAO <meta@vmeta.jp> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Cc: bdrewery@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: question about PORTVERSIONing Message-ID: <00000149a7984f80-aedf3a3d-7c64-417f-9547-2cc2f2403146-000000@us-west-2.amazonses.com> In-Reply-To: <54641FD6.6050807@FreeBSD.org> References: <00000149a6efbad6-83c03324-44b9-4858-b787-e65a63cd590e-000000@us-west-2.amazonses.com> <54641FD6.6050807@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I use upstream version as it is, thanks! 2014-11-13 12:04 Bryan Drewery wrote: > On 11/12/2014 8:16 PM, Koichiro IWAO wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I have a question about determining PORTVERSION. >> >> I was told to correct PORTVERSION 0.0.yyyy.mm.dd style [1] by a >> committer. >> devel/ruby-build port now has yyyymmdd style PORTVERSION like 20141028 >> and >> yyyymmdd is the upstream's official versioning system. I'm not using >> date >> instead of version number since upstream has no version information >> but >> just using through upstream version to PORTVERSION. >> >> Do I have to use 0.0.yyyy.mm.dd in such case? >> >> [1] https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194646 >> > > Use whatever you want as long as it is monotonically increasing. No > requirement for "0.0". You can use YYYYMMDD or YYYY.MM.DDDD if you > wish. > If upstream tags their releases like this it is even better to follow > it. > > The idea of using "0.0." in front is a "just in case" upstream follows > a > new tag scheme, but we already have PORTEPOCH for those situations. Why > add an arbitrary 0.0 into the tag if upstream doesn't use that? -- `whois vmeta.jp | nkf -w` meta <meta@vmeta.jp>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?00000149a7984f80-aedf3a3d-7c64-417f-9547-2cc2f2403146-000000>