git snapshots, PORTVERSION, PORTEPOCH

[Jeremy Messenger]

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 06:48:56 -0600, Max Brazhnikov <makc at freebsd.org>  
wrote:

> 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.

I agree, but I am not sure if that sha256 (or whatever what git uses hash)  
will be always higher letters+numbers in combo? If so, please use the date  
instead or figure something else better. It will working with SVN as it  
always bump higher r+numbers.

Cheers,
Mezz

>> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ports at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"



-- 
mezz7 at cox.net  -  mezz at FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD GNOME Team
http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/  -  gnome at FreeBSD.org