tin tin-*: cleanup

[darren.bane@…]

tin-devel-1.9.2

Description: Updating to the latest development version of tin.

Note: This very old ticket was an update request with title UPDATE: tin-devel-1.9.2.

[darren.bane@…]

Patch against news/tin-devel/Portfile

[raimue (Rainer Müller)]

We already have tin 1.9.2 as tin-recent. I don't quite get this versioning schema. Why do we have three ports for tin? What is the difference between tin, tin-recent and tin-devel? port info tin-recent told me to look at ​http://www.tin.org/history.html, but that does not explain anything for me.

[darren.bane@…]

I had no idea that there was a tin-recent port. I only ever heard of <name> and <name>-devel ports, for released and alpha/beta quality code respectively (see tor and tor-devel for an example). I think any differences between tin-recent and tin-devel should be resolved, the result checked in as tin-devel, and tin-recent deleted. What do other people think?

[raimue (Rainer Müller)]

Replying to darren.bane@gmail.com: Exactly what I think about it. But let us wait for Vincent's comment on this.

[vinc17@…]

The goal of tin-recent is to get the latest version with the latest features and bug fixes. This is generally the development version, but not always. For instance, on 2006-01-01, tin 1.8.0 (stable) was released, but tin 1.9.0 (development) hadn't been released yet. So, tin-devel was still at 1.7.10 while tin-recent was at 1.8.0, which corresponded to 1.7.10 + bug fixes.

[vinc17@…]

FYI, tin-recent was added following that: ​UPDATE: tin-devel 1.8.1, which had been closed as invalid. Otherwise users would have to switch between tin and tin-devel (which is not possible automatically) to get the latest features and bug fixes.

[vinc17@…]

I've just improved the explanations in the tin-recent Portfile.

[darren.bane@…]

After skimming both the tin-devel and tin-recent portfiles, I think the latter is better (to be expected since it's the only one that was maintained). My recommendation now is to copy the tin-recent portfile into tin-devel, after adding one last comment saying that the tin-recent portfile should never be edited, instead edit either tin-devel or tin as applicable and copy it to tin-recent. A less palatable alternative is to delete whatever port duplicates tin-recent (tin-devel for now).

A port aliasing facility would be nice (i.e. make tin-recent an alias for whatever concrete port), but I don't think this exists. And making tin-devel a depends_run of tin-recent will break "port contents", etc., so I think the current setup is probably for the best.

[vinc17@…]

IMHO, tin-devel doesn't make much sense. What's interesting in a devel port in general is to have the latest features and bug fixes. But I see no point having a devel port that can sometimes be outdated compared to the new stable release (after a feature freeze).

[ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)]

Let's discuss this topic on macports-dev, not in this ticket. "tin-recent" is the only port with "-recent" in its name, so this is nonstandard. Let's discuss on the list how we want to handle this, for all ports.

[(none)]

Milestone Port Updates deleted

[petrrr]

Cc Me!

[petrrr]

The most recent versions are now tin 2.2.1 20140504 and tin 2.3.0 20141003 (potentially tin-devel). Nobody seems to require the latest features of 2.3. So can we update to tin to 2.2.1 and get rid of both tin-devel and tin-recent.

Could there be an issue with updating tin to the 2.2 series?

[petrrr]

Cc Me!

[petrrr]

Update request for tin see here: #32914.

[kurthindenburg (Kurt Hindenburg)]

I've updated tin to 2.4.0 and tin-devel to 2.3.4 - tin-recent has been obsoleted - please open a new ticket for any further issues.