2008/2/4, Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 2008-02-04 11:27:24 -0600, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > Regarding the suggestion to rename all *-devel ports to *-latest, in > > light of the above change, the name "latest" would indeed seem to be > > clearer. It would also remove any potential confusion with the RPM - > > devel packages, which IMHO would be quite a good thing. > > I think this would be a good idea. > > > I guess this is as good a time as any to bring up the "tin" ports: > > > > $ port search ^tin$ ^tin- > > tin news/tin 1.8.3 A threaded > > NNTP and spool based UseNet newsreader > > tin-devel news/tin-devel 1.7.10 A threaded > > NNTP and spool based UseNet newsreader > > tin-recent news/tin-recent 1.9.2 A Usenet > > newsreader > > $ > > > > Now, ignore the version numbers shown for a minute. Based on comments in > > the header of "tin-recent" (copied below), it seems to be the > > maintainer's intention (hey, that's you, Vincent!) that "tin" is the > > latest released version, "tin-devel" is the latest development version, > > and "tin-recent" is the more recent of the two. It looks like someone has > > updated tin-recent but forgotten to update tin-devel. So, to match > > AFAIK, tin-devel is no longer maintained (and perhaps no longer used). > > > Vincent's new proposals, "tin-devel" gets deleted and "tin-recent" gets > > renamed to "tin-latest", yes? > > +1 for this new policy.
Then we would have to warn new users about -latest not being so stable because intuitively I would like the latest version to be installed but what retains me the the previous one is that "it just works". For the sake of stability I would have -unstable marked clearly, so that the users dont expect too much magic with -latest. -- Thomas de Grivel _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
