Anonymous swell.k at
Sat Feb 21 04:01:58 PST 2009

Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu at> writes:

> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 09:32:52 +0300
> Anonymous <swell.k at> wrote:
>> Would it be okay if I use commit hash in PORTVERSION and constantly
>> bump PORTEPOCH on each update? Are there any such precedents?
>> %%%
>> PORTEPOCH=      1
>> 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?

> Use, like other ports do:
> PORTVERSION=    0.0.10
> 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.

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list