On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 12:17 AM, Stuart Henderson <st...@openbsd.org> wrote: > On 2015/07/18 17:16, Brad Smith wrote: >> On 07/18/15 17:04, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote: >> >viq <vic...@gmail.com> writes: >> > >> >[...] >> > >> >>>>Maybe it would make sense then to have both 0.6 and 0.7 in the tree? >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>3 lines up from that.. >> >>> >> >>>The current stable release is 0.6.26, released May 6, 2015. >> >> >> >>Yes, and right below that it says: >> >>The 0.6 series is in the process of being deprecated and the 0.6.26 >> >>release is the last release of the series that will receive new >> >>additions or enhancements. >> >> >> >>0.6 is becoming deprecated. 0.6 doesn't support a backend I'd like to >> >>use, 0.7 does. We have in ports postfix stable and snapshot. Maybe it >> >>would make sense to have the same for duplicity then? >> > >> >If some people really need the devel version I don't see a reason not to >> >do it. >> >> The rule of thumb we use for the ports tree is use releases and stable ones >> at that. That is the reason 99%+ of the ports tree use such releases. > > Supplying multiple versions of a port which is a dependency of other > ports adds some problems, it's not too bad here because it's a rundep > only, but deja-dup uses this, so that would want to be handled one > way or another.
Maybe make deja-dup depend on >=0.6<0.7 ? And duply if/when imported could depend on >=0.7 > Anyone know upstream's timescale on naming 0.7 stable? I tried looking but haven't found anything yet. -- viq
