On 01/03/2013 04:16 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:
On 01/03/2013 04:09 PM, Rainer Müller wrote:> On 2013-01-04 00:49, Blair Zajac wrote: >>> Also, should we put the epoch number into the generated pkg and mpkg >>> filenames? I'm going to add it to the version number: >>> >>> ${epoch}.${portversion}.${portrevision} >> >> I decided to drop the epoch number since Apple docs suggest there's only >> three digits or precision in a version number and it's not used anywhere >> else in package, for example, in the package filenames. The work was >> done for OS X >= 10.6: > > IIRC the epoch was not added to the file name of archives as the epoch > will only increase when a change to the version number demands it, > leading to a new unique combination of ${name}-${version}_${revision}.If one is putting MacPorts packages into a distribution system, then I think epoch would still be useful, but I'm hoping I don't need it in the future. > Out of curiosity, what happens when a port version does not follow the > canonical format of major.minor.revision? I don't know, I haven't seen any discussions regarding this. This is my first work with native Apple packaging and putting them into munki, so I'm fixing problems as I run into them :)
I got some feedback from the Munki people [1] and it honors any number of integers in a version number, so to ensure that packages and metapackages will support epoch without issue, I put in the epoch number into the generated filenames and internal version number.
Blair [1] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/munki-dev/-DCERUz6rrM/zMbY6iimIGwJ _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
