Projects with multiple versions in our ports tree

[Edwin Groothuis]

On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 05:43:48PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> In situations where there are likely to continue to be a large number of 
> "fooNN" versions, "foo-devel" versions, etc, I'd like to suggest that we 
> actually encourage the use of "fooNN" ports, and then have "some 

Can you give us some examples of ports which follow the models you
have been describing?

I know that for example lang/tclNN always have had the version
numbering, same with net/openldapNN, and that was because of the
incompatibilities they were causing in either the API, the language
or the program itself. And in the future these incompatibilties
would keep repeating themselves, so a lang/tcl and net/openldap was
never created. So an sich these ports were, despite all with the
same subject/topic/target, all unique.

Other ports like mail/postfix have been able to maintain compatibility
(as good or bad as it went) but sometimes branched (to version 2,
to version 2.1) on which snapshots were made for people who didn't
dare to upgrade yet. The snapshots could live there own life further
with security updates, other enhancements etc.

So before you make a single rule with regarding to this, make sure
you have all situations described properly. It would be very bad
if half your programs suddenly break because ports/foo (which
installed ports/fooXX) gets updated to ports/fooYX.

Edwin

-- 
Edwin Groothuis      |            Personal website: http://www.mavetju.org
edwin at mavetju.org    |          Weblog: http://weblog.barnet.com.au/edwin/