On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 12:44:30AM +0100, Alexander Bluhm wrote: > On Tue, Jan 04, 2022 at 08:32:50AM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > > MODULES = cpan > > > PKG_ARCH = * > > > -DISTNAME = CGI-Simple-1.115 > > > +DISTNAME = CGI-Simple-1.26 > > > > this results in the version number (as understood by ports) going > > backwards so will need an EPOCH bump > > Some Perl modules have crazy ideas about version numbers. Instead > of increasing EPOCH each time something stupid happens, some 0 can > be inserted into package name. This makes it more likely that the > numbers increase monotonically.
Unfortunately I have to share this regularly at work too. https://xdg.me/version-numbers-should-be-boring/ > Look at http://matrix.cpantesters.org/?dist=CGI-Simple "Other > versions" how they jump around. > > I think p5-CGI-Simple-1.260 package name should be used in this > case. That is how perl thinks of the version internally, not sure if there's a way to handle that automatically in the ports system though as perl will think of `v1.26` as `1.026`. That leading "v" is significant. The fact that perl "5.32" and "v5.32" are the same, but a module's "1.26" and "v1.26" are not is quite annoying. > wen heping: Please speak with upstream and try to convince them to > use continous three digit version numbers like 1.270 in the future. > It is not only the OpenBSD package manager which has trouble with > inconsistent numbers. That above page might help convince them to switch to something better. I know MANWAR has a fair number of dists so convincing him would probably help a lot.
