On 01/05/2013 02:43 PM, Rainer Müller wrote:
On 2013-01-05 23:04, Blair Zajac wrote:
On 01/05/2013 01:32 PM, Rainer Müller wrote:
I guess munki uses the version number from in the metadata of the pkg
and not from the filename, so we could avoid putting epoch 0 in the
filename (to keep them short), but still keep the epoch and version in
the metadata.
I argue that consistency is more important here. People are making
packages for a reason, so keeping the epoch number there doesn't need to
be hidden. But I don't feel that strongly about it.
We hide the epoch information from users in other places. As said
earlier, the filenames of archives do not include the epoch. More
important, it is also not part of the default 'port info' output.
I'm not suggesting we add the epoch to standard port commands.
I think generated packages that are pulled out of MacPorts and placed
into other systems should contain all the versioning info in an obvious
way. We're not talking about average MacPorts users using these packages.
Also, what about a different separator for the epoch to avoid confusion?
Writing the example above as foo-1_3.2.0_0.pkg would be easier for
recognition by humans.
In the work I committed, the .pkg and .mpkg filenames do use _ as a
separator, so it would look like foo-1_3.2.0_0.pkg.
I have to apologize I did not check the actual code and only followed
the example on the list...
I didn't take any offense by your statement.
Blair
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
