discussion on package-version numbers... (PR 56961)

[Jacques A. Vidrine]

On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 02:01:05PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> Is it fair to say that the real problem is that we are trying to
> impose order on version-numbers which are being picked by the
> 10,000 different developers of the original programs that we are
> creating ports for?  So, basically, no matter what scheme we come
> up with, we have absolutely no way to force any of the original
> authors to conform to our scheme.  None.  We can not do it.  It
> will not happen.  We have no way to make it happen.  Even if we
> pick something that works today, there is nothing we can do to
> prevent 1,000 of those independent developers deciding on some
> new version-numbering scheme for *their* products tomorrow, and
> thus break whatever clever grammar we dreamed up today.
> 
> If so, then let's just give up on that.

No, we're not trying to set rules for how the 10,000 package
developers version their packages.  We've never done that, and we
never will, as you say :-)

But, we do not just blindly use the package's `native' version
numbering scheme.  Well, some sloppy committers do, and even some
careful committers make some mistakes.

> Alternate idea for
> handling versions:
> 
>  <portversion> -> *our* idea of the version of the sources
>                   for this port.

That's what we have today.

>                   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.

>  <portrevision> -> incremented when *our* files for a port
>                   changes (our makefiles, our patches, etc),
>                   but we are still basing the port on the
>                   same sources from the original developer.

Yes, that is what we have today.

>  <origversion> -> the version which the original developer
>                   tagged on their source files.
> 
> So, a full portname might look like:
> 
>   bash2-2003E16.0-2.05b.007
> 
> We use the '2003E16.0' part for all our own FreeBSD-ports
> processing, and we basically ignore whatever version the
> original author gave their source.  The *author's* version is
> only there for humans to eyeball and nod at, when they want to
> compare what they have installed on FreeBSD to what they have
> on other operating systems.  It is not to be used by ports-
> processing, since we have no control over those values.
> 
> . . . . . . 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 :-)

Cheers,
-- 
Jacques Vidrine / nectar at celabo.org / jvidrine at verio.net / nectar at freebsd.org