Re: Conventions/policy regarding packages in pkgsrc-wip that use wip/mk/git-package.mk

[Aleksej Lebedev <root%zta.lk@localhost>]

On 2018-01-05 20:00, Greg Troxel wrote:

> There are two separate things that git can mean.  One is that the
> upstream is hosted in git, which shouldn't affect the name.  The other
> is that the package is packaging an unreleased version of the package
> and is expected to change semi-erratically.  The point is not really
> git, but "code from a VCS that does not have releases".  Probably we
> should have some standard suffix to mean this, but the Linux world uses
> -devel to mean "the package parts you need to build against", and -dev
> isn't different enough.  So for now we have a mix of -svn and -git.

This is clear. I would like to see a common suffix too (be it -dev or
smth else) instead of -svn and -git.

> Upstreams should make releases, available as tarballs, and we should
> package those releases.
>
> When they don't have releases, there's a question as to whether we
> should have packages in main pkgsrc at all.

I think it's OK to have packages for unreleased versions.
If I understand it correctly, mk/fetch/github.mk allows to specify
GITHUB_TAG exactly to handle these cases.


Anyway, than you for the clarification!

--
Aleksej Lebedev