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

[Blair Zajac]

On 01/05/2013 01:32 PM, Rainer Müller wrote:
> 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.

I argue that consistency is more important here.  People are making 
packages for a reason, so keeping the epoch number there doesn't need to 
be hidden.  But I don't feel that strongly about it.

> 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.

In the work I committed, the .pkg and .mpkg filenames do use _ as a 
separator, so it would look like foo-1_3.2.0_0.pkg.

Blair