On Tuesday 11 March 2008 17:53:50 Jacob Meuser wrote: > 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.
ugh. that drives me crazy as well. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
