From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 16 19:05:46 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 583D116A4EE for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:05:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 93BB143F4C for ; Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:58:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 29174 invoked by uid 399); 16 Oct 2006 18:58:29 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?156.154.4.14?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 16 Oct 2006 18:58:29 -0000 Message-ID: <4533D64C.50907@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:58:20 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Dupre , ports@FreeBSD.org References: <200610151346.k9FDkfmP012472@builder.freebsd.org> <45324105.3030002@FreeBSD.org> <20061016092752.GZ71000@droso.net> <4533555E.3020001@FreeBSD.org> <20061016100247.GI71000@droso.net> In-Reply-To: <20061016100247.GI71000@droso.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: Re: Ports with version numbers going backwards: print/pdflib, print/pdflib-perl X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:05:46 -0000 Erwin Lansing wrote: > On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 11:48:14AM +0200, Alex Dupre wrote: >> Erwin Lansing ha scritto: >>> $ pkg_version -t 7.0.0p1 7.0.0_1 >>> >>> It's not. >> I know that 7.0.0p1 is major than 7.0.0_1. What I'm asking is if it >> really matters, since nobody could download the 7.0.0p1, so they sticked >> with plain 7.0.0. If it's an issue for automated scripts I will fix it. >> > Automated scripts have no knowledge that this might be an exception > because the previous version wasn't installed anywhere. This is an > assumption they have to make, so yes, please fix it. If the previous version that a user could actually install was lower than the current version, I don't see any reason to jump through hoops here. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection