[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/security/gnupg21
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 08:16:50PM +0900, Ryo ONODERA wrote:
> From: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>, Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 12:44:22 +0200
> >> >> > The question remains -- why point source builds to
> >> >> > the 2.0.x version, when binary packages and bulk builds are picking up
> >> >> > the higher 2.1.x version instead?
> >> >>
> >> >> I have no idea about your bulk build environment.
> >> >> In general, higher version/revision number is preferred in pkgsrc.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, but for source builds you tell it to use gnupg2, not gnupg21.
> >> You mean that behavior of security/gnupg2 and security/gnupg2 is
> >> not in usual way?
> > Bulk builds and binary packages use the list of all packages and match
> > against that. So if you have gnupg2-2.0.29.tgz and gnupg2-2.1.6nb2.tgz,
> > both matching the pattern, the one with the higher version is picked.
> > If you do a source build and don't have a matching package installed,
> > gnupg2 would be used as specified. That's inconsistent.
> O.K. I understand the problem.
> For consistency,
> should be used.
> However security/gnupg2 and security/gnupg21 share same user interface.
> And if someone want to use security/gnupg21 instead of security/gnupg2,
> what we can do for the someone?
If there is a reason to strictly want gnupg2 and not gnupg21, yes.
Otherwise the pattern is better as gnupg2-[0-9]*:../../security/gnupg21.
Main Index |
Thread Index |