Subject: Re: dealing with pkgname-latest.tar.gz
To: Chris Jones <email@example.com>
From: Hubert Feyrer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/24/2001 21:35:26
On Thu, 24 May 2001, Chris Jones wrote:
> > I think the right solution was to copy it as jde-YYYYMMDD.tgz to
> > ftp.netbsd.org:.../LOCAL_PORTS, then use (only) that as master site.
> In this case, they actually use version numbers -- they just don't use
> a version number for the latest version. I think I'll list the real
> master site second, after ftp.netbsd.org.
That won't buy you anything.
But if they actually do have version numbers, why not use them?
I can only guess that the "latest" is either a link to a numbered version,
or some "in-development" version that's not very stable. We don't want
more beta software in pkgsrc than necessary, as we just have to fix it for
> > (Sounds like a question for the FAQ... :)
> That was a hint, wasn't it? :) It kind of looks like we need another
> FAQ, though. We currently have a user's guide, and a committer's
> guide, but no maintainer's guide. There is, of course, the *huge*
> Packages.txt file in the pkgsrc directory, but there's nothing (that I
> can find) on the web site.
Well, so rather than bring the existing documentation (Packages.txt) into
the web, create more redundant documentation? Don't go there. Please.
Packages.txt has a FAQ section, and things should be added there.
And if someone wants to move Packages.txt into a different format or
whatever, that's a different thing. Just keep documentation in one
[*] This isn't actually true any more either. We have Packages.txt,
pkgsrc/README, pkgsrc/mk/mk.conf.example, packages.7. Can you
spell redundancy? If you want to do something good, think about
a way to merge all this! (I had to document some stuff in three
redundant places recently - not funny!)
Hubert Feyrer <email@example.com>