On 2016-05-04 15:20, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> In my opinion, llvm-3.8 and llvm-3.9 should really have a -devel >> prefix as long as they provide pre-releases. The same also applies >> to gcc6. With the *-devel naming scheme it would be easy to >> identify the latest stable version. > > I disagree. We currently have two naming schemes: > > foo and foo-devel: this means the ports install different versions of > the same software to the same places; the ports conflict and are > drop-in replacements for one another. Other ports declare > dependencies on this port using path:-syntax. > > foo1, foo2, foo3: this means the ports install different versions of > the same software to different places; the ports do not conflict. > Other ports declare variants for each version they want to support.
Actually I agree with this. My request was that in addition to that any port providing unstable/pre-release software should have a *-devel suffix. In this case, if the port is made to track the development of what will become LLVM 3.9, it should be named llvm-3.9-devel. Only after LLVM 3.9 is released as a stable version it should be renamed to llvm-3.9. The ports llvm-3.9 and llvm-3.9-devel are still drop-in replacements. Users should easily see which port provides a stable version and which tracks a pre-release. Rainer _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
