Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 22:54:19 -0500 From: Will Andrews <will@csociety.org> To: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/devel/bison Makefile distinfo ports/devel/bison/files patch-getargs.c patch-reader.c Message-ID: <20011210225419.L30626@squall.waterspout.com> In-Reply-To: <20011210194318.A16652@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <200112110158.fBB1wXA84599@freefall.freebsd.org> <20011210222737.J30626@squall.waterspout.com> <20011210194318.A16652@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 07:43:18PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > Explain what it does to the processing? PORTEPOCH was added for the case > of PORTVERSION=20011210 going to PORTVERSION=2.3 -- an obvious change in > the version number scheme. It seems you are trying to take a statement > that was said under the assumption of my example above to be absolute > irregardless of situation. From the two comments from you and sobomax, I > am starting to think no one knows how PORTEPOCH is processed and exactly > what it affects. It allows folks who upgraded from the original bison 1.28 to 1.29 or 1.30 to "downgrade" the software version while upgrading package installs. Since someone may have installed a version of the bison port or package with the PORTEPOCH, you have essentially broken the bison installs of people in the last 16 hours. They will not be able to upgrade with conventional FreeBSD tools. That is not acceptable. Put PORTEPOCH=1 back, please. "People will just have to put up with it" does not work when you're saying it to a user. You seem to be trying to avoid PORTEPOCH at all costs. If nothing else, I want to know why, and what you have to suggest to accomodate these version problems. It does not hurt anything to leave PORTEPOCH in bison or anything else alone. By the way, in case you forgot, I've been doing FreeBSD ports long enough to remember when PORTEPOCH, PORTREVSION, and PORTVERSION didn't exist. I was part of the group of people who worked on the PORTEPOCH proposal. If you had a better solution to the problem, I'm sure we would have used it. So don't insult my memory or knowledge about how or why it works. PORTEPOCH is intended to handle all cases of where PORTVERSION-PORTREVISION combination was downgraded for whatever reason, not just the case you mentioned. From that point of view, it's useful not only to accomodate vendor versioning schemes, but packagers' as well. Regards, -- wca To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011210225419.L30626>