Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 19:15:20 -0600 (CST) From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: Norikatsu Shigemura <nork@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/75491: mail/dspam: fix deinstall; fix comment; bug-fixes; update Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0412251911470.25036-100000@pancho> In-Reply-To: <200412260033.iBQ0XFLB031919@sakura.ninth-nine.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004, Norikatsu Shigemura wrote: > According to ports handbook(*), I consider that PORTREVISION > should be reset to 0 rather than removing PORTREVISION. But > PORTREVISION=0 is same as no PORTREVISION. And to be sure, > it is not necessarily clearly shown by ports handbook. > > (*) http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/makefile-naming.html#MAKEFILE-NAMING-REVEPOCH There are issues involved here with masterports and slave ports interacting badly in certain cases of changes to PORTVERSION, PORTREVISION, and PORTEPOCH, but I am feeling a little bit sleepy right now and I don't think I can explain it well. The PH is completely lacking in this detail. I will try to see if I can look up my email on the issue the last time that it came up. I think eik@ is the person who best understands the issue, IIRC. I also recall concluding that there was a lot of bad practice in our tree because of this confusion. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.44.0412251911470.25036-100000>