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

[Rainer Müller]

On 2013-01-05 19:18, Blair Zajac wrote:
>> That would cause problems if the epoch for a package is ever increased
>> from 0 to 1, since the version number would change unpredictably.
>>
>> e.g. say you have a package with version 3.2.1 epoch 0, revision 0, so
>> if you missed out the epoch when zero, this would give the 'munki'
>> version
>>
>> 3.2.1.0
>>
>> say you then increase the epoch to 1 (to downgrade to 3.2.0). the
>> version then would be
>>
>> 1.3.2.0.0
>>
>> which is a completely different format to the first, and not obvious
>> if it would be seen as newer or not. My guess not.
> 
> Agreed, this would not be seen by Munki as a newer version, but an older
> one.  Given this and that we would always want to the file version
> number with the internal version number (say to make scripts easier to
> write), suggests that we keep the epoch there.

I guess munki uses the version number from in the metadata of the pkg
and not from the filename, so we could avoid putting epoch 0 in the
filename (to keep them short), but still keep the epoch and version in
the metadata.

Also, what about a different separator for the epoch to avoid confusion?
Writing the example above as foo-1_3.2.0_0.pkg would be easier for
recognition by humans.

Rainer