svn commit: r403347 - head/security/keepassx2
Cy Schubert
Cy.Schubert at komquats.com
Wed Dec 9 14:53:51 UTC 2015
In message <20151209144013.GA10737 at FreeBSD.org>, Alexey Dokuchaev writes:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 06:15:23AM -0800, Cy Schubert wrote:
> > In message <20151209081342.GA41332 at FreeBSD.org>, Alexey Dokuchaev writes:
> > > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 08:40:41PM +0000, Cy Schubert wrote:
> > > > New Revision: 403347
> > > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/403347
> > > >
> > > > Log:
> > > > Update 2.0-beta2 --> 2.0
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > PORTNAME= keepassx
> > > > -DISTVERSION= 2.0-beta2
> > > > -PORTEPOCH= 1
> > > > +DISTVERSION= 2.0
> > > > +PORTEPOCH= 2
> > >
> > > Why did you bump port epoch here? DISTVERSION ensures that resulting
> > > PORTVERSION is correctly mangled, and used for -betas and -rcs because
> > > it allows to seamless update to .0 releases:
> > >
> > > $ make -V PORTVERSION DISTVERSION=2.0-beta2
> > > 2.0.b2
> > > $ pkg version -t 2.0.b2 2.0
> > > <
> >
> > My mistake. I expected 2.0.b2 to sort after 2.0.
>
> Understood; please please please guys, always check before bumping the epoch
> as it can never go back (unless you rename the package).
>
> ./danfe (portepoch hater)
I'm not a big fan of portepoch either, which is why I'm always careful
to put alphas, betas, and other non-GA software into -devel ports.
This wasn't my port but to scratch an itch caused by an older release
I updated a port that IMO should have been -devel until it became GA.
I now understand that alphas, betas, and rcs are handled specially.
I for one will continue to make the distinction with ports I myself
maintain I think there's some value to distinguishing between GA and
non-GA software.
~Cy
(using nmh at the moment)
More information about the svn-ports-head
mailing list