Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 23:18:19 -0700 From: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> To: Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com> Cc: Walter Schwarzenfeld <w.schwarzenfeld@utanet.at>, FreeBSD Ports ML <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: "Confused" PORTREVISION Message-ID: <43F4B3DC-C651-40E0-81D9-613193272BEB@adamw.org> In-Reply-To: <CAN6yY1vJHAp%2Bbf%2Bu5oUNzORqKcfvz%2BRcLZU-wT7nuRVfWX6w=g@mail.gmail.com> References: <42ac3597-f82a-ef8d-0d8d-f6a7c5a84d46@utanet.at> <2abbc227-f2da-69e0-1d0d-1b872bbc475f@utanet.at> <59143D35-B810-4670-8F78-C8D7F0CF91B6@adamw.org> <CAN6yY1ukeKB%2BcEi%2BtgSEbsse1RLjxOb3O9Ut5oowH5GZUtwxTA@mail.gmail.com> <5C851835-A1A7-4EED-AEDD-4D587B499EAD@adamw.org> <CAN6yY1vJHAp%2Bbf%2Bu5oUNzORqKcfvz%2BRcLZU-wT7nuRVfWX6w=g@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 24 Dec, 2017, at 23:09, Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> wrote: > On 24 Dec, 2017, at 22:23, Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> wrote: > On 24 Dec, 2017, at 20:03, Walter Schwarzenfeld > <w.schwarzenfeld@utanet.at> wrote: > > But > > RUBY_RELVERSION= 2.3.6 > RUBY_PORTREVISION= 0 <= > RUBY_PORTEPOCH= 1 > RUBY_PATCHLEVEL= 0 > RUBY23= "" # PLIST_SUB helpers > > PORTREVISION=0 confuses pkg version > > pkg version |grep ruby23 > ruby23-2.3.6,1 < > > this is the version which is installed. > > PORTREVISION=0 is treated as if it were unset. Some people prefer using > that construct because it keeps line numbers consistent in the SVN > history. > > # Adam > > The Porters Handbook now calls for the use of portrevision=0. > > It does? I wasn't aware of that. > > # Adam > > I learned about this when i submitted a port update to a new release and > the committer added PORTREVISION=0. He told me that it was now the > approved way if doing ports. > > 5.2.3.1 > > PORTREVISION is a monotonically increasing value which is reset to 0 with > every increase of DISTVERSION, typically every time there is a new > official vendor release. If PORTREVISION is non-zero, the value is > appended to the package name. Changes toPORTREVISION are used by > automated tools like pkg-version(8) to determine that a new package is > available. So that block isn't saying that 'PORTREVISION=0' is the official thing. It's saying that the value needs to be reset to 0. Removing the line entirely is still the preferred way of resetting it to zero. # Adam -- Adam Weinberger adamw@adamw.org http://www.adamw.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43F4B3DC-C651-40E0-81D9-613193272BEB>