On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 08:02:23PM +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > Hi Jacob, > > Jacob Meuser wrote on Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 02:14:27AM +0000: > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 01:59:56AM +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > >> On Tuesday 11 March 2008 17:53:50 Jacob Meuser wrote: > > >>> I _hate_ it when I change a port locally and up the p level, > >>> and then pkg_add -u downgrades that package. > >> > >> Hmmm, the p-level is not ideal for keeping track of private tweaks, > >> imho it's better reserved for official, committed patch levels. > > > > why? > > Because using the same thing for two different purposes provokes > clashes, in this case consider the following example: > * You start from the committed version _op1. > * You implement private tweaks _op2 and _op3. > * The maintainer commits _op2. > * Your pkg_add now has a hard time figuring out > whether _op3 or _op2 is more recent.
no, because if it's local and I don't ever plan on making it official, and I never want official packages to overrride, I'd make it 1000 + whatever the _op# I started from. e.g. _op2 -> _op1002 > Still worse, in fact, neither _op3(local) nor _op2(official) > are up to date: You will probably want to merge official and > private patches first. How is pkg_add going to figure that out? > Then, how will you call the result of your private merge? > It's the successor to _op2(official), so _op3? > Or it's the successor to _op3(local), so _op4? private will start at 1000, and be 1000 + whatever I started from. anyway, espie says these discussion are for ports hackathons, so ... -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
