Recommendations for version numbers in port names

[Bradley Giesbrecht]

On Nov 12, 2014, at 8:53 AM, Joshua Root <jmr at macports.org> wrote:

> On 2014-11-12 17:14 , Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
>> On Nov 10, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Bradley Giesbrecht <pixilla at macports.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> I don't know that I understand these variant checks, they seem to not produce the same result in all cases:
>>> 
>>> http://trac.macports.org/browser/tags/release_2_3_2/base/src/port/port.tcl#L289
>>> http://trac.macports.org/browser/tags/release_2_3_2/base/src/port/port.tcl#L1752
>>> http://trac.macports.org/browser/tags/release_2_3_2/base/src/macports1.0/macports.tcl#L730
>>> http://trac.macports.org/browser/tags/release_2_3_2/base/src/port1.0/portutil.tcl#L2289
>>> 
>>> Would a proc for testing variant name sanity be worth the effort?
>> 
>> It would probably be a good idea to decide on an authoritative specification and consolidate verification in a single place.
> 
> I think you mean validation? We don't actually do that anywhere at the
> moment. All the places above are just parsing.

If we did create authoritative validation service, would portutil.tcl be a good location?

Regards,
Bradley Giesbrecht (pixilla)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20141115/bbc8b3d3/attachment.sig>