Naming of postgresql & related

[John Ridgway]

On Jan 20, 2007, at 3:27 PM, Salvatore Domenick Desiano wrote:

> We've had a couple of longish discussions about how to handle ports  
> with
> multiple current versions. I think that mysql was the last such  
> debate.
> Maybe we should have a "policy" about this. I'm thinking something  
> like
>
> - one port for each version that the project, itself, deems to be in
>   current service, each with the version number in it (in this case,
>   postgresql74 postgresql80 postgresql81 postgresql82)
>
> - one default, empty port which simply has a dependency on the most
>   recent version (in this case, postgresql, which depends on
>   postgresql82).
>
> This way, if people do it blindly (postgresql), they get the most
> recent. If people write ports that need postgresql, they automatically
> get a dependency on the most recent version. If a writer of another  
> port
> (say, port "A") discovers that A only works with one specific version
> of postgresql, they can use one of postgresql{74,81,82} as a  
> dependency.
> In this case, it would be that port writer's responsibility to update
> the Portfile for A to the most recent workable dependency (since
> automatic upgrades have become a non-starter for A).
>
> Incidentally, I only think this should be used for specific ports  
> where
> more than one major version is constantly in active use (apache,  
> mysql,
> postgresql come to mind). In other cases a "beta" variant might be a
> better approach.

> Thoughts?
>
> -- Sal
> smile.

The problem with this is that I remember reading (somewhere) that  
variants should not change the version!  Is that rule to be relaxed  
in the case of "beta" variants?

Peace
- John