On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 10:23:55PM +0100, Marc Espie wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 05:11:04PM -0400, Brad wrote: > > On Tuesday 11 March 2008 16:57:20 Jacob Meuser wrote: > > > > so, for the rest of the life of these ports, we will always have to tack > > > on v0? > > > > > > seems (much) less than ideal. > > > > That makes no sense at all. It should be 1.12 -> 1.13 -> 1.12v0 -> 1.14. > > There is no way around it. > > You cannot have sensible rules that will work that way. > > Instead of suggesting version numbers, try figuring out a scheme that works, > and lets you order softare sensibly. There is no other way. > > v* is for when you have a break in the numbering. You cannot go back, ever. > > It's simple, and it's not such a big deal.
so is p, but I _hate_ it when I change a port locally and up the p level, and then pkg_add -u downgrades that package. there's gotta be room for improvement. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
