Subject: Re: package directory naming (and renaming devel/swig to devel/swig11)
To: Dieter Baron <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Julio M. Merino Vidal <email@example.com>
Date: 01/06/2006 16:29:20
On 1/5/06, Dieter Baron <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> any objections if I rename devel/swig to devel/swig11? It is highly
> irritating that the unversioned package directory a historical (and
> for Perl unusable) release.
> Is swig-1.1 still needed at all?
> On a broader note, could we please set and document a policy on how
> to name package directories if more than one version of a program is
> in pkgsrc? Including on how to handle adding the second version
> (e. g. renaming the original unversioned package).
Indeed; we should really have some documented policy about this.
And here is a proposal: I would like us to move away from the confusing
naming scheme we currently use for versioned packages to something
that is clearer. This means changing swig11 to swig1.1. foo11 might be
ok for single digit versions, but it gets unmanageable when one component
of the version number reaches two digits.
I'm currently facing the issue of adding gstreamer 0.10. According to the
current scheme, I'd move the current packages to foo08 and add the new
one without any version number in them. But I don't like it, because it
doesn't scale well for future versions (e.g., foo010). Therefore, what I'l=
do is to move the existing ones to foo0.8 and add the new ones as
foo0.10. There won't be an unversioned foo package.
Julio M. Merino Vidal <email@example.com>
The Julipedia - http://julipedia.blogspot.com/
The NetBSD Project - http://www.NetBSD.org/