From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 29 08:09:15 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DA3216A4CE for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:09:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fillmore.dyndns.org (port-212-202-50-15.dynamic.qsc.de [212.202.50.15]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BB0C43D49 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:09:15 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com) Received: from dhcp-11.local ([172.16.0.11] helo=localhost) by fillmore.dyndns.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1BfDfj-0009hb-Az; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:09:14 +0200 Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:09:16 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v482) To: Sergey Matveychuk From: Oliver Eikemeier In-Reply-To: <40E11E4C.4040006@ciam.ru> Message-Id: <9D3E74F8-C9A3-11D8-9FE1-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: KMail/1.5.9 cc: FreeBSD ports Subject: Re: Ports with version numbers going backwards: devel/ode X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:09:15 -0000 Am Dienstag den, 29. Juni 2004, um 09:46, schrieb Sergey Matveychuk: > Erik Trulsson wrote: > >> I understand his proposal rather as giving >> 0.005 < 0.039 < 0.05 = 0.050 < 0.5 < 0.39 < 050 < 0.390 < 0.500 > > Not exectly. > 0.005 < 0.039 < 0.05 < 0.050 < 0.5 < 0.39 < 0.50 < 0.390 < 0.500 > > Ending zoros can't be droped. Ok, it was fun discussing this, and I admit it's a nifty idea. The problems with that are: - it breaks backward compatibility (and tools like portupgrade have to be adapted to the new rules) - it is of limited use, e.g. only when leading zeroes in a version number are dropped *and* the resulting version number is smaller than the previous one. - it is another addition the the already non-trivial version number parsing rules So, do we expect enough benefits from this change to actually accept the costs, or do we just bump the PORTEPOCH from time to time (or force ports to use .500 instead of .5 when the previous version was .039)? Btw, normally portlint should warn you of such issues when there is a more or less up-to-date INDEX on the machine. -Oliver