Request for comment: standard switch for development branch
- From:
- Misty De Meo
- Date:
- 2011-09-13 @ 00:05
Hi, all,
In pull request #7550, Charlie and I were talking about the best way
to handle formulae with an unstable branch option. He pointed out that
some formulae (like Nginx) use `HEAD` for tarball releases with an
official version number, while others (like Wine) have a separate url
with a flag like `--devel`.
`HEAD` doesn't seem like an ideal solution to me, since it doesn't
include a version number in the cellar and breaks `brew-upgrade`
(assuming `upgrade` supports switches). What does everyone think about
`--devel` as a standard commandline switch for a development branch
with a tarball/version numbers?
Probably not a pressing issue since I think there's only about 7 or 8
formulae that fall into this category (counting the pending Mednafen
formula), but I figure having standards doesn't hurt.
Misty
Re: [homebrew] Request for comment: standard switch for development branch
- From:
- Mike McQuaid
- Date:
- 2011-09-13 @ 07:32
On 13 Sep 2011, at 01:05, Misty De Meo wrote:
> `HEAD` doesn't seem like an ideal solution to me, since it doesn't
> include a version number in the cellar and breaks `brew-upgrade`
> (assuming `upgrade` supports switches). What does everyone think about
> `--devel` as a standard commandline switch for a development branch
> with a tarball/version numbers?
I would agree. To me HEAD means specifically their version control
system's HEAD or trunk. Tarballs should be --devel.
--
Mike McQuaid
http://mikemcquaid.com