Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 15:01:19 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: discussion on package-version numbers... (PR 56961) Message-ID: <p06020420bcc8151e290e@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <20040512160713.GB9065@madman.celabo.org> References: <20040416173857.GA50670@madman.celabo.org> <20040416174418.GC50670@madman.celabo.org> <40802354.3030202@fillmore-labs.com> <20040417152242.GA5543@madman.celabo.org> <20040506190729.GD1777@madman.celabo.org> <p0602040bbcc04f36c2aa@[128.113.24.47]> <20040506212442.GF2316@madman.celabo.org> <20040506213641.GA93452@xor.obsecurity.org> <20040506220855.GI2316@madman.celabo.org> <p0602040ebcc178ae7b88@[128.113.24.47]> <20040512160713.GB9065@madman.celabo.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 11:07 AM -0500 5/12/04, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote:
>On Fri, May 07, 2004, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
>
>> Alternate idea for
>> handling versions:
>>
>> <portversion> -> *our* idea of the version of the sources
>> for this port.
>
>That's what we have today.
Well, what we have today is an attempt to map the original
source version to something we think we can use.
> > Make it a date string.
>> [personal twist on that idea: make the month
>> a letter from A-L, instead of 01-12]
>
>Our current scheme (as well as my strawman) preserves more
>of the original version. This is aesthetically pleasing.
My suggestion would still leave the original version for
viewing purposes, but just not use it for any automatic
processing. I think a case could also be made that it
would be aesthetically pleasing if all our ports used a
single, simple, consistent format for the version of our
port of various original programs. Here we go through the
trouble of coming up with some mapping-function, but no
matter how good we do at that we always end up with using
the port-epoch "fudge factor", because there is no mapping
function that will consistently work right.
> > . . . . . . or was my initial premise not fair to say? :-)
>
>Your premise was fair enough. I guess there is desire to keep
>the differences between the original package version and our
>${PORTVERSION} small. Otherwise, we could just forget the
>whole mess and use ${PORTEPOCH} only :-)
Well, that's basically my suggestion, except that we keep the
port-version around for human-display purposes...
Ah well. It was just a suggestion. Cheers.
--
Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p06020420bcc8151e290e>