Aleksej Saushev <asau%inbox.ru@localhost> writes: > othyro%safetymail.info@localhost writes: > >>> Just a reminder, this is not pkgsrc, this is WIP. >> >> If we keep looking at pkgsrc-wip like that, >> it's not going to help what's here become less WIP faster. > > Whatever you do, VCS-based packages are not going into pkgsrc, > but if you start treating them as if they are meant for generic > consumption you're going to slow developers down. Now try to figure > what is more beneficial to users. > > If you want to help, you'd rather address the real problem in the > package under discussion which is > >>>> => Creating binary package >>> /dsk3/pbulk/packages/xen5/All/objfw-gitnb20130608.tgz > > As you can easily see here, the package doesn't have version number. I would say that a date-based package should have a version number, which is more or less what upstream would call a point development release. So if 0.3 is current, and they are working to 0.4, then I'd call it 0.3.0.20130610 PKGREVISION is an abuse, because it's meant to denote changes in packaging, not changes in upstream content
Attachment:
pgpQs4FYsBWmc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________ pkgsrc-wip-discuss mailing list pkgsrc-wip-discuss%lists.sourceforge.net@localhost https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pkgsrc-wip-discuss