Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:43:24 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> 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 Message-ID: <20090713174324.GA70528@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.1.99.0907131906500.8877@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> References: <200907072353.n67NrlPh032677@repoman.freebsd.org> <20090713143026.GA36954@regency.nsu.ru> <alpine.LSU.1.99.0907131906500.8877@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090713174324.GA70528>