[csw-maintainers] [policy] Re: feature patching, and naming

[Philip Brown]

On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Peter Bonivart <bonivart at opencsw.org> wrote:
> ...
>
> Looking at what's written now at
> http://www.opencsw.org/extend-it/contribute-packages/build-standards/#versioning,
> I think it should be allowed (but not to be used unless needed) for
> more numeric fields than YYYY.MM.DD since that makes it easy to make a
> package the same day that distinguishes itself from the other one by
> using, e.g., YYYY.MM.DD.HH.mm. Pkgutil processes any number of these
> fields until one package "wins". I don't know if you do but it's a
> suggestion.

It is what I have always presumed, and have suggested to folks when needed.
Rather than make an explicit "hh.mm" thing, I think it's more than
adequate to have
YYYY.MM.DD.seqnum
We only need a max of 4 fields there for full disambiguation.


>
> I also think we should make it clear that the version string is now in
> three parts where the middle one is optional, the content of it should
> be from a fixed list which from the start should contain "p" for
> patched. Something like this:
>
> 1.2.3[,x],REV=YYYY.MM.DD[.xx]
>
> What do you think?

Works for me. Although we should probably make some other
recommendations in the writeup such as:
 - keep the optional field as short as possible.
 - it is preferred to NOT be present, unless neccessary
 - current neccessary uses are:  ",p", which denotes a feature patch
applied by the maintainer. See README for details. Other uses should
be discussed on the maintainers list.
  .. oh I guess we can formalise also, ",sparconly"  and ",i386only"


Lets avoid people creating
1.2.3,ithinkthisisokaybuttryitandletmeknowmkay,REV=YYYY.MM.DD