NTPsec 1.2.3 released

Fred Wright fw at fwright.net
Wed Jan 3 04:52:53 UTC 2024

On Wed, 3 Jan 2024, Matthew Selsky wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 07:21:39PM -0800, Fred Wright via devel wrote:
>> There are a couple of minor issues that I should have noticed in the RC but
>> didn't:
>> 1) The 1.2.2a entry is missing from NEWS.  This is presumably because of the
>> way the patch release was forked off of the master branch, though the entry
>> still should have been included in master.  As far as the master branch
>> history goes, 1.2.2a never existed.  This is easily fixed.
> I see 1.2.2a at https://gitlab.com/NTPsec/ntpsec/-/blob/master/NEWS.adoc?ref_type=heads#user-content-2023-08-02-1-2-2a
> Where do you see it missing?

Hmm.  I must have been mistaken.  I do see it there now.  I ws looking at 
diffs while prepping the MacPorts update, and must have looked at the 
wrong thing.  Never mind.

>> 2) This RC version was named 1.2.3rc1 instead of 1.2.3-rc1.  This screws up
>> the sort order and makes it look like the RC version is newer than the
>> release version.  It didn't follow the precedent of 1.2.2-rc1, which did it
>> correctly.  E.g.:
>> MacPro:~ fw$ port livecheck ntpsec
>> ntpsec seems to have been updated (port version: 1.2.3, new version: 1.2.3rc1)
> I'm not familiar with "port livecheck".

"Port" is the general command for MacPorts, and "port livecheck" is the 
command to see whether a newer upstream version exists than the one 
currently provided.  I made a brief attempt at working around the issue by 
adjusting the livecheck regex, but it didn't work and I didn't want to 
spend more time on it.

You can also see the issue just by looking at the directory ordering at:


Note how 1.2.2-rc1 precedes 1.2.2, but 1.2.3rc1 follows 1.2.3.

> If I repack/rename the tarballs on the website to include a hyphen, will 
> that make the port command happy?

It should, though if the timestamps get updated in the process it would 
trade bad name ordering for bad timestamp ordering.  The ideal thing would 
be to fix the names but keep the original timestamps.  Three of the four 
files have the name(s) embedded, so a simple rename wouldn't work.  That 
makes it a little dishonest to keep the old timestamps, though it matches 
the spirit of the timestamps. :-)

Fred Wright

More information about the devel mailing list