From owner-freebsd-ports  Mon Mar 20 15:40:55 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from patrol.area51.fremont.ca.us (adsl-63-195-147-14.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net [63.195.147.14])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39ADD37BA52
	for <ports@freebsd.org>; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:40:46 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from mharo@patrol.area51.fremont.ca.us)
Received: (from mharo@localhost)
	by patrol.area51.fremont.ca.us (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA86321
	for ports@freebsd.org; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:40:49 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from mharo)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:40:49 -0800
From: Michael Haro <mharo@area51.fremont.ca.us>
To: FreeBSD Ports Team <ports@freebsd.org>
Subject: Version Numbering Question
Message-ID: <20000320154048.A86305@area51.fremont.ca.us>
Reply-To: mharo@area51.fremont.ca.us
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i
Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

Hi, I noticed lots of ports violating the handbook guidelines and using
versioning like -1.2.3pl4.

For ports that *have* version numbers and then patch levels, should 
we allow 'pl' in the version or change the version number in the ports
to something like 1.2.3p4?

Michael


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message