Re: Can PORTVERSION be gYYYYMMDD ?

2017-11-28 Thread Mathieu Arnold 
Le 28/11/2017 à 09:36, Yuri a écrit :
> The port audio/ir-lv2 was committed with PORTVERSION=g20130909.
>
> make in another port with this instruction:
>
> > RUN_DEPENDS=ir-lv2>0:audio/ir-lv2
> doesn't check the version of ir properly, and always tries to rebuild it.
>
>
> Is PORTVERSION=gMMDD actually allowed?
>
> The handbook doesn't mention such format. Section Example 5.9 here
> https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/makefile-distfiles.html#makefile-distname-ex1
> offers PORTVERSION=20160710 as an example.
>
> If it's not allowed, why doesn't framework complain?
>
> Otherwise, the version check for such ports must be fixed. 

There is an example a bit further down on that page with the gMMDD.

The idea is that in each label (things between dots) in version numbers,
letters are before the numbers.

$ pkg version -t 1.0.a1 1.0
<

The idea behind using gMMDD for snapshot of software that never had
versions is so that if they ever get a version, gMMDD is still
before version 0, so using PORTEPOCH is not needed.

-- 
Mathieu Arnold




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Can PORTVERSION be gYYYYMMDD ?

2017-11-28 Thread Tobias Kortkamp 
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 09:36, Yuri wrote:
> The port audio/ir-lv2 was committed with PORTVERSION=g20130909.
> 
> 
> make in another port with this instruction:
> 
>  > RUN_DEPENDS=ir-lv2>0:audio/ir-lv2
> doesn't check the version of ir properly, and always tries to rebuild it.
>
> Is PORTVERSION=gMMDD actually allowed?
> 
> The handbook doesn't mention such format. Section Example 5.9 here 
> https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/makefile-distfiles.html#makefile-distname-ex1
>  
> offers PORTVERSION=20160710 as an example.

Look further down.  It's mentioned in example 5.13 [1].  It also
explains what's going wrong.  A PORTVERSION=gMMDD is always < 0.
So you might want to use

RUN_DEPENDS=ir-lv2>=g20130909:audio/ir-lv2

or depend on a specific file instead.

[1]
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/makefile-distfiles.html#makefile-master_sites-github-ex4
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Can PORTVERSION be gYYYYMMDD ?

2017-11-28 Thread Jan Beich 
Yuri  writes:

> The port audio/ir-lv2 was committed with PORTVERSION=g20130909.
>
>
> make in another port with this instruction:
>
>> RUN_DEPENDS=ir-lv2>0:audio/ir-lv2
> doesn't check the version of ir properly, and always tries to rebuild it.

Maybe due to sort order

  $ pkg version -t g20130909 0
  <

Try instead

  RUN_DEPENDS=ir-lv2>a:audio/ir-lv2

or

  RUN_DEPENDS=ir-lv2>g0:audio/ir-lv2
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Can PORTVERSION be gYYYYMMDD ?

2017-11-28 Thread Yuri 

The port audio/ir-lv2 was committed with PORTVERSION=g20130909.


make in another port with this instruction:

> RUN_DEPENDS=ir-lv2>0:audio/ir-lv2
doesn't check the version of ir properly, and always tries to rebuild it.


Is PORTVERSION=gMMDD actually allowed?

The handbook doesn't mention such format. Section Example 5.9 here 
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/makefile-distfiles.html#makefile-distname-ex1 
offers PORTVERSION=20160710 as an example.


If it's not allowed, why doesn't framework complain?

Otherwise, the version check for such ports must be fixed.


Thanks,

Yuri

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"