Re: PostgreSQL PKGNAME

[Adam <adam%albedo.art.pl@localhost>]

>>>> Do you object to the act of changing, or to the new state?  Could you
>>>> explain the 'major hassle'?
>>> 
>>> Both, but primarily the new state. It basically requires any pattern an
>>> explicit limit if you don't want to get surprised when a new Postgres
>>> version arrives. In the real world, a Postgres update requires at least
>>> some planing to deal with the database format change, if nothing else.
>> 
>> OK, that's a good reason.  It seems important for pgsql major version
>> jumps to only happen when the box admin explicitly tries, and this seems
>> more important than getting to avoid cluttered names and not having to
>> have explicit CONFLICTS.  So I will concur in your objection to removing
>> the version tag from PKGNAME.
> 
> Maybe we could add a short comment to the relevant package Makefiles
> documenting this reason - both to help anyone else raising this question
> and to explain what kind of prior art they comprise if anyone is tempted
> to copy the layout in future for other packages...

I think it should go into The pkgsrc guide.