Projects with multiple versions in our ports tree

[Jun Kuriyama]

# This is just my opinion from old experience.

At Sun, 15 Aug 2004 01:10:31 +0000 (UTC),
Ade Lovett wrote:
> On Aug 13, 2004, at 00:16, Jun Kuriyama wrote:
> > I'm using "foo" port as mainstream version and "fooXX" port as forked
> > / obsoleted versions (and I think this tradition is still alive, isn't
> > it?)
> 
> This only works when there is an identifiable "mainstream" version.  
> Since the autotools stuff was mentioned, pretty much all of them can be 
> considered "mainstream" given the massive incompatibilities between 
> versions (yes, I'd love to have just libtool,autoconf and automake, but 
> it just ain't going to happen).

To decide what branch would be "mainstream" or not should up to
maintainer.  I know your effort around autotools and it's difficulty,
but if I were a maintainer, I'll just use libtool as the latest
version with complete CVS history, and use libtoolXX as old, branched
version (but I think your choice is not so bad and satisfied with
current situation).

What I mentioned as "mainstream" is, if someone want to use that port
as newbie (without histrorical compatibility problem), he should chose
that version.  If original distribution is folked, we should make
another port which has $PKGBASE (like comms/conserver and
comms/conserver-com).

> One thing that slightly bugs me are ports that effectively include the 
> version number twice, for example:
> 
> 	cd /usr/ports/dns/bind9 && make -V PKGNAME
> 	bind9-9.2.3
> 
> To my mind, that should really read bind-9.2.3, with appropriate 
> LATEST_LINK magic.

Agreed.


-- 
Jun Kuriyama <kuriyama at imgsrc.co.jp> // IMG SRC, Inc.
             <kuriyama at FreeBSD.org> // FreeBSD Project