On Sat, Apr 04, 2015 at 11:07:11PM +0200, Adam Wolk wrote:
> Hi tech@
>
> I'm the maintainer of www/otter-browser and I got caught while packaging
> otter-browser 0.9.04. Upstream asked us to point at a different commit
> then the tagged revision so we did:
>
> GH_TAGNAME = v0.9.04
> # This is the actual tagged revision
> # GH_COMMIT = 869d29d19719b3057e137a79d4a10025d2c920f6
> # but we were asked by upstream to release from the following commit
> # as it's considered an important fix affecting the majority of users
> GH_COMMIT = 23d7ee6f9cd636e750687a01975b177c1c9c2e53
>
> This port was reviewed with an ok by two people and underwent further
> changes later on.
>
> I didn't notice that the port actually packaged GH_TAGNAME contents
> instead of GH_COMMIT.
GH_COMMIT is meaningless in terms of "package version", which expects a
correctly structured version, hence GH_TAGNAME being usually used in
combination with GH_PROJECT.
Look, you even set it yourself for otter-browser:
DISTNAME = ${GH_PROJECT}-${GH_TAGNAME:C/^v//}
(and PKGNAME is derived from DISTNAME)
Here, since you go forward in git history, you have the choice of
bumping REVISION, or using .YYYYMMDD suffixes, or using the special
'pre' / 'rc' / 'beta' keywords in the version, see packages-specs(7).
Soooo i'm not sure the documentation is at fault here :)
Landry
