Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?00000149a7984f80-aedf3a3d-7c64-417f-9547-2cc2f2403146-000000>