From owner-svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Mon Sep 10 13:34:28 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9101810900A8; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 13:34:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [96.47.72.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "freefall.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A8F38193F; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 13:34:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id 2A9C0E6F8; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 13:34:28 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 13:34:28 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Mathieu Arnold Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r479372 - in head/graphics/zint: . files Message-ID: <20180910133428.GA4433@FreeBSD.org> References: <201809100817.w8A8HkKF087807@repo.freebsd.org> <20180910101021.bcp7bpdclkgbu22b@ogg.in.absolight.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180910101021.bcp7bpdclkgbu22b@ogg.in.absolight.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.5 (2018-04-13) X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 13:34:28 -0000 On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 12:10:21PM +0200, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 08:17:46AM +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > +DISTVERSION= 2.6.3_rc2 # NOT a "release candidate", > > fixup for 2.6.3 > > The you should probably not be using DISTVERSION, because it's going to > be 2.6.3.r2, which, for the ports tree, means release candidate, and is > before 2.6.3. It should probably be using a PORTVERSION of 2.6.3r2 and > set DISTNAME to the correct file name. I've considered something like this as well, but later got more inclined towards DISTVERSION since, well, it is exactly how they've named the distfile, even if it's not a release candidate. I think I've provided enough information to mitigate possible confusion or accidental "update" to plain 2.6.3. ./danfe