question about PORTVERSIONing
robak at freebsd.org
Thu Nov 13 10:10:07 UTC 2014
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 4:04 AM, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery at freebsd.org> wrote:
> On 11/12/2014 8:16 PM, Koichiro IWAO wrote:
>> I have a question about determining PORTVERSION.
>> I was told to correct PORTVERSION 0.0.yyyy.mm.dd style  by a committer.
>> devel/ruby-build port now has yyyymmdd style PORTVERSION like 20141028 and
>> yyyymmdd is the upstream's official versioning system. I'm not using date
>> instead of version number since upstream has no version information but
>> just using through upstream version to PORTVERSION.
>> Do I have to use 0.0.yyyy.mm.dd in such case?
>>  https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194646
> Use whatever you want as long as it is monotonically increasing. No
> requirement for "0.0". You can use YYYYMMDD or YYYY.MM.DDDD if you wish.
> If upstream tags their releases like this it is even better to follow it.
> The idea of using "0.0." in front is a "just in case" upstream follows a
> new tag scheme, but we already have PORTEPOCH for those situations. Why
> add an arbitrary 0.0 into the tag if upstream doesn't use that?
> Bryan Drewery
The idea of doing 0.0.date is more about being able to sort the
package versions easily and in a way that makes sense at first glance,
rather than to replace PORTEPOCH (which is in a way 'invisible' to
package user) in case of upstream decides to implement any versioning
scheme, and I've given that advice following Porter's Handbook here:
and I have to say, it makes sense to me, personally.
If this is incorrect, then apologies, my intentions were to adhere to
the documentation and provide the maintainer some guidance - in such
case, the Handbook should be corrected about that.
More information about the freebsd-ports