On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 01:14:36PM +0200, Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
Whether you want to call it "name=blackbox-cvs, version=2005-08-24" or "name=blackbox, version=cvs-2005-08-24" is up to you, but I'd go for the later, since this will allow users to update to the next regular version without using pkgadd -f to take over the files (or remove the cvs port before, in which case they'd have to manually back up the configuration files). That said, this of course means that mplayer-1.0pre7-1 and mplayer-20050806 would conflict (currently, they don't since the later is called mplayer-cvs). Users could still get them by subscribing directly to your httpup. The question really is "does it make sense to have both mplayer and mplayer-cvs available in the ports tree?". If yes, then using a 'cvs' postfix might be better. There's a similar issue with '-dev' and '-devel' ports by the way.
Well, I think also that we should not have a separate port for the CVS version. Personally I would say that it's better to have two ports which are different in the version and not in the name. For example if we want one CVS and one stable version of mplayer I would say that the latest stable version of it should belong to the contrib repository and the cvs version (both are named equally) should belong to a private httpup repository. I think that a CVS version is definite that what can be considered as an exotic port and therefore it doesn't belong to the contrib repository. Now everyone can switch easily between the stable and the CVS version of mplayer. And if the port isn't popular enough to get into the contrib repository it doesn't make any sens to create ports with different versions of it. Regards Viper