On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 02:46:58AM -0400, Tinker wrote: > Hi! > > Some packages, such as automake and autoconf, come in more versions > within the same flavor. > > Certain ports will depend on a particular version of a package, and > that's why more versions of the same package and flavor are > distributed. > > As a user, you may be fine with just knowing that the latest version > packaged, gets installed. > > And, you may have installation scripts that install the OS for you, > because you prefer the installation to be as uninteractive as it can. > > "pkg_add automake" asks you interactively which version you would like > to install. Similarly specifying "noninteractive" and "fuzzy" mode both > don't have the effect of installing the latest version, see pkg_add > output below. > > Can "pkg_add automake%latest" be done some way today, is it a planned > feature, or is it intentionally delegated to users to implement it > separately themselves?
I don't think it actually makes sense in that case. Say, if the "latest" version is not 100% compatible with the previous one, then you may accidentally install a version that no longer works. For stuff like automake, it makes more sense to figure out which features you need, and to check out the branch that matches your needs. This idea that the "latest" is automatically the "best" is often a disastrous idea. It would work in a perfect world. Not so for actual software. ESPECIALLY for gnu stuff which tends to break randomly for no sensible reasons (noticed quite a few times working on gnu make or binutils or gettexte, for instance). The naming of branches is deliberate, and a definite editorial decision on the project. We will make no effort to help you shoot yourself in the foot.
