Created attachment 258966 [details] www/forgejo & www/forgejo7 update www/forgejo: update 10.0.1 → 10.0.3 Release Note: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/release-notes-published/10.0.3.md www/forgejo7: update 7.0.13 → 7.0.14 Release Note: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/release-notes-published/7.0.14.md
(In reply to Orville Q. Song from comment #0) Thank you, I'm travelling right now and didn't have the time to push the update.
A commit in branch main references this bug: URL: https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/ports/commit/?id=1fbef2e67c45643da581ea5d4fcc823efbac666f commit 1fbef2e67c45643da581ea5d4fcc823efbac666f Author: Orville Q. Song <orville@anislet.dev> AuthorDate: 2025-03-24 12:49:03 +0000 Commit: Vladimir Druzenko <vvd@FreeBSD.org> CommitDate: 2025-03-24 12:53:15 +0000 www/forgejo: Update 10.0.1 => 10.0.3 Changelogs: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/release-notes-published/10.0.2.md https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/release-notes-published/10.0.3.md PR: 285621 Approved by: Stefan Bethke <stb@lassitu.de> (maintainer) www/forgejo/Makefile | 3 +-- www/forgejo/distinfo | 6 +++--- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
www/forgejo committed, thanks. For www/forgejo7 awaiting approval from Marko.
(In reply to Vladimir Druzenko from comment #3) I'm building new version at the moment, as soon as I successfully upgrade my test instance I'll write here. Hopefully not later than 20:00 CET today.
(In reply to Vladimir Druzenko from comment #3) Hi, I have successfully patched, built and installed forgejo 7.0.14. Feel free to commit. Perhaps this particular PR is not the best way to discuss it, but according to: https://forgejo.org/docs/latest/admin/release-schedule/ next release - 11.X - will be at some point both forgejo and forgejo-lts for some time. Should continue with nomenclature such as www/forgejo as stable and www/forgejo11 as LTS? Or perhaps we should switch to www/forgejo as stable and www/forgejo-lts as LTS? If former, shoud we have both www/forgejo and www/forgejo11 pointing to same release (11.0) once it's released in April, or should we create www/forgejo11 only when www/forgejo becomes 12.0 in July? Also, shall we retire www/forgejo7 as soon as it becomes EoL upstream in July? If we don't switch to www/forgejo and www/forgejo-lts naming scheme, LTS users won't be able to upgrade their instances with simple "pkg upgrade", they will need to deinstall www/forgejo7 and install www/forgejo11. This will happen on yearly basis, and it will problably need UPDATING entry or pkg-message. Thank you in advance,
A commit in branch main references this bug: URL: https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/ports/commit/?id=54871294dca0f046a06e4c310287dbeb93743e1d commit 54871294dca0f046a06e4c310287dbeb93743e1d Author: Orville Q. Song <orville@anislet.dev> AuthorDate: 2025-03-24 20:49:35 +0000 Commit: Vladimir Druzenko <vvd@FreeBSD.org> CommitDate: 2025-03-24 20:54:04 +0000 www/forgejo7: Update 7.0.13 => 7.0.14 Changelog: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/release-notes-published/7.0.14.md PR: 285621 Approved by: Marko Cupać <marko.cupac@mimar.rs> www/forgejo7/Makefile | 5 ++--- www/forgejo7/distinfo | 6 +++--- 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
(In reply to Marko Cupać from comment #5) 1. If there are several LTS versions supported and current devel: portnameV1, portnameV2, etc., portname-devel. Example: www/tomcat-devel www/tomcat101 www/tomcat110 www/tomcat9 Just now www/tomcat-devel and www/tomcat110 have same version. 2. If there are current version and LTS: portname, portname-lts. Example: www/firefox www/firefox-lts 3. If there are old stable version, new stable and very old stable - "legacy" (with a reason not to remove it): portname, portname-V1, portname-legacy. Example: emulators/virtualbox-ose emulators/virtualbox-ose-70 emulators/virtualbox-ose-legacy I don't know forgejo's versioning policy, so it's hard for me to recommend anything. What versions are supported (LTS, non-LTS)? Is there any devel version?