[91865] trunk/dports/science/netcdf-cxx/Portfile

[Joshua Root]

On 2012-4-13 04:47 , Eric Cronin wrote:
> On 12.04.2012 10:34, Joshua Root wrote:
>> On 2012-4-13 00:20 , Jeremy Lavergne wrote:
>>> When the epoch gets put back in, you'll also need to update the
>>> revision.
>>> epoch: 1
>>> version: 4.2
>>> revision: 2
>>
>> The bug in the registry API that necessitates that is gone in 2.1 BTW.
>>
> 
> Wasn't there a second issue that the filenames for packages don't
> include epoch, so there is a risk of grabbing/reusing the package from a
> different epoch if the version_revision part happens to match?  Is this
> fixed as well in 2.1?  None of the packages on packages.macports.org
> have epochs in the filenames yet.

It doesn't matter, by definition. A higher epoch just tells you that an
older-looking (but different) version is actually newer. If
name,version,revision,variants are all the same, it's the same software.

This means you can upgrade a port from 1.0 to 1.1, and then if there are
problems with 1.1, revert to 1.0 by increasing the epoch, and nobody who
hadn't upgraded yet has to rebuild.

- Josh