From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jul 13 17:43:24 2009
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033)
	id 76E441065672; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:43:24 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:43:24 +0000
From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>
To: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>
Message-ID: <20090713174324.GA70528@FreeBSD.org>
References: <200907072353.n67NrlPh032677@repoman.freebsd.org>
	<20090713143026.GA36954@regency.nsu.ru>
	<alpine.LSU.1.99.0907131906500.8877@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.1.99.0907131906500.8877@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Cc: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@nsu.ru>,
	"Philip M. Gollucci" <pgollucci@FreeBSD.org>,
	cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/devel/scons Makefile distinfo pkg-plist
X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree <cvs-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ports>,
	<mailto:cvs-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ports>,
	<mailto:cvs-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:43:24 -0000

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 07:08:29PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> >>   - Update to checkpoint release 1.2.0_20090223
> > This change is wrong; PORTREVISION should not be used to encode any
> > software version part; its sole purpose for ports infrastructure only.
> > For complex vendor versions, DISTVERSION should be used instead.  Right
> > now, for instance, you've essentially made impossible to bump PORTREVISION,
> > shall it be required for any reason, without introducing ugly hacks.
> 
> This sounds very familiar to the status quo I maintained with the lang/gcc 
> ports for some years which I then resolved a few months ago.  Philip, you
> may want to have a look at lang/gcc43 for an example how I addressed this
> there -- and if you find improvements, let me know. ;-)

In your case, Gerald, you seem to deal this the fact that GCC people
drop minor .4 version for their snapshots, e.g. for version 4.3.4.%date%
snapshot would be 4.3-%date% as opposed to 4.3.4-%date% (the latter
would allow you to user DISTVERSION without cryptic VERSIONSTRING hack).

In Philip's case, DISTVERSION should be enought, I guess.

./danfe