From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 13 05:36:11 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C898DE5C for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 05:36:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from a27-35.smtp-out.us-west-2.amazonses.com (a27-35.smtp-out.us-west-2.amazonses.com [54.240.27.35]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C23377 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 05:36:11 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=hsbnp7p3ensaochzwyq5wwmceodymuwv; d=amazonses.com; t=1415856017; h=MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Message-ID:Feedback-ID; bh=EKTpqGXUugEXNfZCjYu99q6qLAVEjhmGy8dEBhfNAak=; b=OdKqOzMAs3ToXa/sUK/S4sOZocjxtlSTVHJ1j9o7OhrwzQ8F/JHvMfz4BC47A1BG Rsp1kQ01SZokOd8fdDzjI60OSkT4pEY3/1akRnzXOQjVt4bzTPQRtlOuOqnqZDj0KFw UtTiXLCc9Zwy6Af8cZTNgcpJxNYp4iAbO1C0YR2I= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=7iuvfuckmdjngkit3px46zmjutqvp75o; d=vmeta.jp; t=1415856017; h=MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Message-ID; bh=EKTpqGXUugEXNfZCjYu99q6qLAVEjhmGy8dEBhfNAak=; b=aICiJBfcESrNmzxc0x5cXv/ZEFdNqJAqk6Zi1y6igx5ihHmzP4/Mju0/HVdA2/Gj l006c+tZL/9+RuHawBc8i5A/OIWFbNYBSVEz4oMVDlnORzQiU/C+XPpk5qYd8K+0e84 eIiQrN4xPMGcRQ1QA7VxJ13JCS0ecsFzoqxanA9g= X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on glory.vmeta.jp X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 05:20:17 +0000 From: Koichiro IWAO To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: question about PORTVERSIONing In-Reply-To: <54641FD6.6050807@FreeBSD.org> References: <00000149a6efbad6-83c03324-44b9-4858-b787-e65a63cd590e-000000@us-west-2.amazonses.com> <54641FD6.6050807@FreeBSD.org> Message-ID: <00000149a7984f80-aedf3a3d-7c64-417f-9547-2cc2f2403146-000000@us-west-2.amazonses.com> X-Sender: meta@vmeta.jp User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.3 X-SES-Outgoing: 2014.11.13-54.240.27.35 Feedback-ID: us-west-2.bWV0YUB2bWV0YS5qcA==:AmazonSES Cc: bdrewery@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 05:36:11 -0000 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