Subject: Re: package directory naming (and renaming devel/swig to devel/swig11)
To: Jeremy C. Reed <email@example.com>
From: Dieter Baron <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/19/2006 11:23:58
In article <Pine.NEB.email@example.com> Jeremy wrote:
: On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Julio M. Merino Vidal wrote:
: > 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 would also prefer adding the period to make it more clear.
: One of my boxes has the following:
: -sh-2.05b$ pkg_info | grep linux-k
: linux-kernel126.96.36.199-188.8.131.52 The Linux kernel
: linux-kernel184.108.40.206-220.127.116.11 The Linux kernel
I find this rather hard to read, but I don't have a better idea
Also part of the policy for multiple versions should be the
requirement to document why we need both versions in pkgsrc
(e.g. ``package XXX needs the old version'' or ``many old scripts
don't work with the new version'' or ``new version not reliable yet,
but has important new features'') so we have some idea when we can
remove the old version. If there are no clear benefits to both
versions, we should just delete the inferior version.