[haiku-commits] Re: r40783 - haiku/branches/features/package-management

  • From: Oliver Tappe <zooey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: haiku-commits@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 00:23:16 +0100

On 2011-03-02 at 23:40:30 [+0100], John Scipione <jscipione@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Oliver Tappe <zooey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[ ... ]
> >
> > Why should we? It's neither being maintained upstream nor do we declare 
> > any
> > other of our ports this way.
> >
> What about Jam, doesn't that have a Haiku designation? And it isn't
> maintained upstream. I think the Haiku designation indicates that it is not
> a stock gcc2 release.

Yeah, right, jam. So we have *two* packages that use an explicit 'haiku' 
designation. All the optional packages don't and many of these are no stock 
releases either. 
So are you suggesting we add a haiku designation to all the patched ones?

But what I should indeed have mentioned in my commit log message is the 
reason for why I dropped the 'haiku' designation: I wanted to let the 
version printed by 'gcc -v' match the gcc package's version. 
Adding/removing a designation to the package version depending on the 
"patchedness" of the software doesn't make sense as then the package version 
would no longer be stable with respect to sorting (i.e. newer version could 
be sorted after older versions).

If really needed, we could add the designation as part of the compiler 
version as for instance SUSE does it with their gcc: 
        2.95.3-110228 (haiku)

The package's version would then still be:


Other related posts: