how to "downgrade" a port in the tree

[Adam Weinberger]

>> (10.13.2004 @ 1221 PST): John Nielsen said, in 1.3K: <<
> Hi folks-
> 
> I have a policy/procedure question-
> 
> I'm not much of a programmer, but I am the port maintainer for the 
> mail/hotwayd port.  The version in the tree is the latest available 
> version, hotwayd 0.8.  However, there are some serious bugs in this version 
> that result in mangled e-mail headers.
> 
> The author does not appear to be actively maintaining the port, since there 
> have been no changes to the webpage (http://hotwayd.sourceforge.net) since 
> February.  I am not aware of anyone else working on these bugs at present.
> 
> The previous version of the software, hotwayd 0.74, works well (albeit with 
> a smaller advertised feature set).  I never submitted a port for 0.74, only 
> 0.71.  I think the best thing would be to have 0.74 in the ports tree.  I'm 
> happy to submit a port-maintainer patch, but I wanted to see if there were 
> any special considerations for going down a version.  What is the best 
> place to notify end-users of the situation? (UPDATING?)  Is there a way to 
> convince portupgrade that the .74 version is better than the .80 version 
> for existing installations?
> 
> Thanks for any input.  Please CC me as I'm not on the list.
>> end of "how to "downgrade" a port in the tree" from John Nielsen <<

Downgrading a port is perfectly acceptable in this situation. If you
cannot patch the 0.80 sources to unmangle the email addresses, submit a
PR downgrading it back to 0.74. All you need to do there is add
PORTEPOCH=	1
and it will appear as a newer version to portupgrade(1). I don't
personally think that it's even necessary to append UPDATING for this.
Noting this situation in the commit message should be sufficient.

# Adam


--
Adam Weinberger
adamw at magnesium.net || adamw at FreeBSD.org
adamw at vectors.cx    ||   adamw at gnome.org
http://www.vectors.cx