Replies: 4 comments 1 reply
-
Ah, good question, there's two versions at play.
So for now at least, I'd stick with the NG versioning if that makes sense to you since the second version at play is a full rebrand in order to "take over" primary development of "classic NEdit" |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Thanks, that all makes sense. I'll wait for nedit-ng-2023.1 to be released. [This is my first OpenBSD port, so it'll probably take a while to get things into a state that is acceptable to the ports people anyway.] |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Update: the OpenBSD folk have fixed up my attempt at a port (see https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=168846206119856&w=2), so it's ready to go when nedit-ng is next released. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@cgdae I totally dropped the ball on this one. Thanks to a long time user, I recently squashed a couple of bugs. Once he confirms the latest fix, I will plan to do a release ASAP. I am so sorry that it took, basically a whole year for me to follow up! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I have a prototype OpenBSD port for nedit-ng (basically a 25-line Makefile), currently hard-coded to the newest nedit-ng in git, a5be3d1. It seems to build, install and uninstall ok.
However to add this as an official OpenBSD port i'll need an OpenBSD port version number - numbers separated by dots, with an optional suffix such as
rc2
. See https://man.openbsd.org/packages-specs.7 for details.I've read elsewhere that the first release of nedit-ng is intended to be version 6.0. So would it make sense to call the OpenBSD port
nedit-ng-5.9
, ornedit-ng-6.0alpha1
? The only technical requirement is that the version number compares less than 6.0, so that the ordering is ok when the first official nedit-ng release is made.Thanks for any suggestions here.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions