Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 15:01:37 +0300 From: Anonymous <swell.k@gmail.com> To: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: git snapshots, PORTVERSION, PORTEPOCH Message-ID: <86r61svw0u.fsf@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20090221104501.06e778f1@it.buh.tecnik93.com> (Ion-Mihai Tetcu's message of "Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:45:01 %2B0200") References: <86bpsw2tbf.fsf@gmail.com> <20090221104501.06e778f1@it.buh.tecnik93.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@FreeBSD.org> writes:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 09:32:52 +0300
> Anonymous <swell.k@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Would it be okay if I use commit hash in PORTVERSION and constantly
>> bump PORTEPOCH on each update? Are there any such precedents?
>>
>> %%%
>> PORTVERSION= 0.0.10${SNAPSUFFIX}
>> PORTEPOCH= 1
>>
>> SNAPSUFFIX= .${SNAPTYPE}.${SNAPREV}
>> SNAPTYPE= git
>> SNAPREV= e09f50e
>> %%%
>>
>> Where PKGNAME would look like
>>
>> myport-0.0.10.git.e09f50e,1
>>
>> I want to keep commit reference in place and refrain from using vague
>> dates in PORTVERSION because there can be several commits per day. And
>> for curious users I can include ChangeLog file in distfile generated
>> from git-log command.
>
> No, please don't do this. We use PORTEPOCH when there's no other way.
OK. I can include date before commit hash and drop use of PORTEPOCH.
It would look like
SNAPSUFFIX= .20090219.e09f50e
Any other objections?
>
> Use, like other ports do:
> PORTVERSION= 0.0.10
> PORTREVISION= ${SNAPDATE}
>
> I don't see what role SNAPTYPE would have.
SNAPTYPE isn't neccessary, just a little convenience.
> Since you have the date, you can easily get the git magic string.
Dates aren't atomic. That would require precise dates up to seconds and
still leave place for ambiguity. I opt to not drop git magic string if
possible else talking to upstream would be a little harder.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86r61svw0u.fsf>