tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: 2008Q1 -> current: downgrade

In article <> Alistair wrote:
: On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 02:23:11PM +0200, Dieter Baron wrote:
: > In article <> Alan 
: > : On Wed, 21 May 2008, Alistair Crooks wrote:
: > : > I wanted to know when we'd use epoch, and have only had hand-waving
: > : > answers.
: > 
: >   Sorry, but this has been answered, quite detailed, more than once in
: > this thread: When a newer release uses a version number that
: > dewey-compare would consider lower than the old version (e.g. when
: > going from dates to N.M).
: > 
: >   This is a real problem for which we currently have no solution, and
: > here a simple, low-effort solution is suggested.

: My point was that we have come 11 years in pkgsrc with very few
: requirements for this functionality.  Suddenly it has become
: absolutely critical and essential to have it now, to address this
: "real problem".

  I think this is because we finnaly tackle the very serious problem
we haven't solved in those 11 years: automated updates that don't fall
over every other time and require manual intervention.  Handling
package renames was one big step in this, handling weird version
numers is another (albeit much smaller).

: I have outlined a workaround for the (as I see it)
: rare occasions when this would be used; to characterise that as
: "no solution" is unfair, I believe.

  Perhaps.  I'm not wed to the EPOCH stuff, and I'm fine with Joerg's
suggestion to prefix the version number with a suitably high first
component.  *IF* this is properly documented in the pkgsrc guide, so
package maintainers know what to do in these circumstances, and what
our tools are able to handle.

: My view is that the more bells and whistles we grow in pkgsrc, the
: more features that are added, the extra switches for this and that -
: they diminish from the whole picture, not add to it.  The aim is
: simplicity, not big honking lists of things we can do but probably
: won't.  A switch that's used once every 5 years seems to come into
: that category.

  I generally agree.


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index