git snapshots, PORTVERSION, PORTEPOCH

[Robert Noland]

On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 15:01 +0300, Anonymous wrote:
> Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu at FreeBSD.org> writes:
> 
> > On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 09:32:52 +0300
> > Anonymous <swell.k at 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?

I don't think that it is likely that we will be able to make that many
commits to the ports system.  I would just use the date as SNAPSUFFIX
and just record the master commit in the Changelog, or maybe in
pkg-message or both.

I really think that more than weekly updates is probably impractical for
the ports system.  Maybe twice a week, but even with a rapidly changing
code base, more frequent updates won't really be useful.

robert.

> >
> > 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.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ports at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
-- 
Robert Noland <rnoland at FreeBSD.org>
FreeBSD
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20090221/0cdaad4c/attachment.pgp