Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes: > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:29:30PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >> - - Version 0.10beta_6 - can we make it saner? Alphanumerical versions >> tend to introduce issues with maintaining upgrades and comparing >> version. Do you know whether 0.10 > 0.10beta_6 for pkgsrc? For RPM and >> pkg-config it's false. > > If you make it 0.10beta6 it's ok for pkgsrc (<0.10). From a numbering POV, yes. But generally pkgsrc discourages packaging beta/etc. and prefers releases. Of source, sometimes it is in the best interest of users becuase there is a beta and there isn't a release for some reason. But when the packager is the upstream author, I think it makes sense to ask for these things to be cleaned up upstream. My advice on beta etc. is to just use numbers. We have an infinite number of version numbers available, and people are unwilling to use them. If you recommend that people use this instead of 0.8, then call in 0.10. If you don't recommend that people switch to it now, don't update pkgsrc. Calling it beta and wanting to update pkgsrc is inconsistent. I concur with Kamil's comments. In DESCR, it might be good to clarify that this is a fork/continuation instead of a fork/competitor, as I understand you have the original author's blessing. Definitely MESSAGE is not appropriate; that belongs in $(PREFIX)/share/doc/tme/README or whatever, or in tme.1 Should the .h files be installed? Are they a public interface? COMMENT should just describe what it does; the current one only makes sense if you already know what tme is. (Basically, this should look like the tme package with a new maintainer, which is what is really happening.) The --disable-recode needs a comment. It seems like it's addressing an upstream bug.
Attachment:
pgp6ynzrMT3GZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature