git snapshots, PORTVERSION, PORTEPOCH

Max Brazhnikov makc at freebsd.org
Sat Feb 21 04:49:00 PST 2009


On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 15:01:37 +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
Please, see http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-
handbook/makefile-naming.html#PORTING-PKGNAME
Using 'e09f50e' in PORTVERSION is not a good idea. However you can use your 
${SNAPREV} in DISTVERSION.

> Any other objections?
>
> > 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.



More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list