> On May 4, 2016, at 9:38 AM, Rainer Müller <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
This makes it much more difficult on developers when the time comes for a port to graduate from development to stable status, as I'm currently doing with gcc6. I don't want to impose that extra work on myself or other developers. > Users should easily see which port provides a stable version and which > tracks a pre-release. Maybe there's another way we can indicate whether a port is stable or not. _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
