*-devel ports

[js]

I think -devel is better.
For one thing, it's more intuitive.
Second, this naming convension is already used in FreeBSD
so at least BSD users prefers -devel one.

By the way, I think MacPorts is not for everyone,
I mean, it's mostly for developer or kinds of techies, right?
So  IMHO providing an easy access to the latest, greatest software is
more important thant prevent users from using might-be-unstable-software.
Bad idea?

On Feb 5, 2008 9:57 PM, Thomas de Grivel <billitch at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/2/4, Vincent Lefevre <vincent-opdarw at vinc17.org>:
> > 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 AFAIK, tin-devel is no longer maintained (and perhaps no longer used).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
> macports-dev at lists.macosforge.org
> http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
>