On 2012-4-13 04:47 , Eric Cronin wrote: > On 12.04.2012 10:34, Joshua Root wrote: >> On 2012-4-13 00:20 , Jeremy Lavergne wrote: >>> When the epoch gets put back in, you'll also need to update the >>> revision. >>> epoch: 1 >>> version: 4.2 >>> revision: 2 >> >> The bug in the registry API that necessitates that is gone in 2.1 BTW. >> > > Wasn't there a second issue that the filenames for packages don't > include epoch, so there is a risk of grabbing/reusing the package from a > different epoch if the version_revision part happens to match? Is this > fixed as well in 2.1? None of the packages on packages.macports.org > have epochs in the filenames yet.
It doesn't matter, by definition. A higher epoch just tells you that an older-looking (but different) version is actually newer. If name,version,revision,variants are all the same, it's the same software. This means you can upgrade a port from 1.0 to 1.1, and then if there are problems with 1.1, revert to 1.0 by increasing the epoch, and nobody who hadn't upgraded yet has to rebuild. - Josh _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
