From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon May  1 19:38:52 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 812FF16A4FA
	for <ports@freebsd.org>; Mon,  1 May 2006 19:38:52 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from krion@voodoo.bawue.com)
Received: from voodoo.bawue.com (voodoo.bawue.com [212.9.161.119])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 063AA43D77
	for <ports@freebsd.org>; Mon,  1 May 2006 19:38:52 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from krion@voodoo.bawue.com)
Received: from krion by voodoo.bawue.com with local (Exim 4.61 (FreeBSD))
	(envelope-from <krion@voodoo.bawue.com>)
	id 1FaeEN-000JYd-Nu; Mon, 01 May 2006 21:38:51 +0200
Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 21:38:51 +0200
From: Kirill Ponomarew <krion@voodoo.bawue.com>
To: Andrew Pantyukhin <infofarmer@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060501193851.GA54315@voodoo.bawue.com>
References: <cb5206420605011232j5cff24c4hea0e41e3a7493bef@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <cb5206420605011232j5cff24c4hea0e41e3a7493bef@mail.gmail.com>
X-NIC-HDL: KP869-RIPE
Cc: FreeBSD Ports <ports@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: portversion and distversion - why not?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 19:38:52 -0000

On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 11:32:55PM +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote:
> Portlint says:
> FATAL: Makefile: either PORTVERSION or DISTVERSION must be specified, not 
> both.
> 
> Can somebody please explain why? It comes in handy
> to be able to define illegal distversion instead of redefining
> the whole distname. B.p.m was designed to handle two
> different variables in the first place. Should we really
> abstain from using this functionality?

DISTVERSION is just conform conversion of PORTVERSION, I don't see a
reason to specify both.

-Kirill