Where to include port version in 'port pkg' output?

[Blair Zajac]

On 01/03/2013 04:16 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:
> On 01/03/2013 04:09 PM, Rainer Müller wrote:> On 2013-01-04 00:49, Blair
> Zajac wrote:
>  >>> Also, should we put the epoch number into the generated pkg and mpkg
>  >>> filenames?  I'm going to add it to the version number:
>  >>>
>  >>> ${epoch}.${portversion}.${portrevision}
>  >>
>  >> I decided to drop the epoch number since Apple docs suggest there's
> only
>  >> three digits or precision in a version number and it's not used
> anywhere
>  >> else in package, for example, in the package filenames.  The work was
>  >> done for OS X >= 10.6:
>  >
>  > IIRC the epoch was not added to the file name of archives as the epoch
>  > will only increase when a change to the version number demands it,
>  > leading to a new unique combination of ${name}-${version}_${revision}.
>
> If one is putting MacPorts packages into a distribution system, then I
> think epoch would still be useful, but I'm hoping I don't need it in the
> future.
>
>  > Out of curiosity, what happens when a port version does not follow the
>  > canonical format of major.minor.revision?
>
> I don't know, I haven't seen any discussions regarding this.  This is my
> first work with native Apple packaging and putting them into munki, so
> I'm fixing problems as I run into them :)

I got some feedback from the Munki people [1] and it honors any number 
of integers in a version number, so to ensure that packages and 
metapackages will support epoch without issue, I put in the epoch number 
into the generated filenames and internal version number.

Blair

[1] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/munki-dev/-DCERUz6rrM/zMbY6iimIGwJ