Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 13 Nov 2014 11:10:06 +0100
From:      Bartek Rutkowski <robak@freebsd.org>
To:        Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@freebsd.org>
Cc:        "ports@FreeBSD.org Ports" <ports@freebsd.org>, Koichiro IWAO <meta@vmeta.jp>
Subject:   Re: question about PORTVERSIONing
Message-ID:  <CAHcXP+fyocAtgYgzTzUXSV=Sp9aFSstJZq_x0d=N4H+Cmqd92A@mail.gmail.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
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 4:04 AM, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@freebsd.org> 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?
>
> --
> Regards,
> Bryan Drewery
>

The idea of doing 0.0.date is more about being able to sort the
package versions easily and in a way that makes sense at first glance,
rather than to replace PORTEPOCH (which is in a way 'invisible' to
package user)  in case of upstream decides to implement any versioning
scheme, and I've given that advice following Porter's Handbook here:
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/makefile-naming.html
and I have to say, it makes sense to me, personally.

If this is incorrect, then apologies, my intentions were to adhere to
the documentation and provide the maintainer some guidance - in such
case, the Handbook should be corrected about that.

Kind regards,
Bartek Rutkowski



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAHcXP+fyocAtgYgzTzUXSV=Sp9aFSstJZq_x0d=N4H+Cmqd92A>