From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 18 18:13:35 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 985DE10656DC for ; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 18:13:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from conrads@cox.net) Received: from eastrmfepo102.cox.net (eastrmfepo102.cox.net [68.230.241.214]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FA178FC13 for ; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 18:13:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from eastrmimpo210.cox.net ([68.230.241.225]) by eastrmfepo102.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.04.00 201-2260-137-20101110) with ESMTP id <20111218181329.NOZA3177.eastrmfepo102.cox.net@eastrmimpo210.cox.net>; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:13:29 -0500 Received: from serene.no-ip.org ([98.164.80.83]) by eastrmimpo210.cox.net with bizsmtp id AiDN1i0041nrG4q02iDRWe; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:13:28 -0500 X-CT-Class: Clean X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020206.4EEE2D48.00A4,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=2AgkN6PbzZC4UAsQZcbssbX5RunWue8Ihodpg0C0nYU= c=1 sm=1 a=_vSOTQt5kFoA:10 a=G8Uczd0VNMoA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=bP8/21xuPmjjKiboDxlPZA==:17 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=kviXuzpPAAAA:8 a=6LE-xol0Xf0ebPa_Nh8A:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=4vB-4DCPJfMA:10 a=bP8/21xuPmjjKiboDxlPZA==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Authentication-Results: cox.net; none Received: from cox.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by serene.no-ip.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id pBIIDKLo039913; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 12:13:20 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from conrads@cox.net) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 12:13:14 -0600 From: "Conrad J. Sabatier" To: Kevin Oberman Message-ID: <20111218121314.28622b18@cox.net> In-Reply-To: References: <20111218104318.7157327c@cox.net> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.6; amd64-portbld-freebsd10.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pkg_version and portversion: ports version comparison weirdness 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: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 18:13:35 -0000 On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 10:06:48 -0800 Kevin Oberman wrote: > On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Conrad J. Sabatier > wrote: > > Can anyone explain why I'm seeing the following? > > > > libX11-1.4.99.1 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 < =A0 needs upd= ating (index has > > 1.4.4,1) > > > > How is it that version 1.4.99.1 compares as "less than" 1.4.4,1? > > Since when is 99 < 4? > > > > Is it the PORTEPOCH in 1.4.4,1 that's throwing a monkey wrench into > > the works? > > > > This makes no sense to me. =A0What is the logic being applied here? > > >=20 > Yes. When epoch increments it starts the versioning all over. Largest > epoch value ALWAYS is considered "newer" that any smaller epoch value, > regardless of the rest of the version number. I suspected that was the case, but wasn't sure exactly how the epoch setting was intended to be used. =20 > Epoch is normally used when a port needs to be rolled back to an older > version due to a serious problem caused by the newer version. E.g. > xcb-utils-3.6 broke a LOT of stuff, so the epoch was bumped to 1 and > the version was set back to 3.6. Once a port has an epoch applied, it > will never be removed. Ah, OK. Thank you. I had never really understood the meaning of the PORTEPOCH variable. Nice to finally have it explained. Regards, Conrad --=20 Conrad J. Sabatier conrads@cox.net