On 2021/02/18 21:02, Daniel Dickman wrote: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 8:34 PM Theo Buehler <t...@theobuehler.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 08:03:15PM -0500, Daniel Dickman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 18, 2021, at 6:19 PM, Theo Buehler <t...@theobuehler.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 12:09:18AM +0100, Theo Buehler wrote: > > > >> The project has moved to github and is somewhat active there. > > > >> > > > >> In particular it merged a gcc-10 fix. It doesn't do releases, so I just > > > >> picked HEAD. fomalib.h has modified structs and function signatures, > > > >> so I bumped the major. > > > >> > > > >> I added a BDEP on devel/bison which might be avoidable but I haven't > > > >> tried. > > > >> > > > >> Lightly tested on amd64. > > > > > > > > I should just have set DISTNAME. > > > > > > I think it would be better to set the package version to 0.9.18 like in > > > the project’s Makefile. > > > > > > That way if the project ever does do a release we don’t have to bump > > > EPOCH. > > > > > > Until then we can continue to resync with git head by bumping REVISION. > > > > I can do that if you feel strongly about it. I think the date is a more > > useful indicator than a release from ~6 years back. > > then just add the date at the end to the package version.
e.g. 0.9.18pre20200928 > > What's the problem > > with bumping EPOCH? > > probably nothing in a leaf port, although in general I try to stay > away from it given interactions with pkgspec meaning one has to > remember to bump revisions of consumers when epoch changes. yes, this. also having this is a common practice (even on leaf ports) it's more likely people will use it as an example in other ports.
