From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 20 19:18:20 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18139106566C for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 19:18:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scheidell@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mx1.secnap.com.ionspam.net (mx1.secnap.com.ionspam.net [204.89.241.253]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1DD48FC0A for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 19:18:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.secnap.com.ionspam.net (mx1.secnap.com.ionspam.net [10.70.1.253]) by mx1.secnap.com.ionspam.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D5AF621C0F for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 15:18:13 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: SpammerTrap(r) VPS-1500 2.18 at mx1.secnap.com.ionspam.net Received: from USBCTDC001.secnap.com (usbctdc001.secnap.com [10.70.1.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.secnap.com.ionspam.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04704621C0E for ; Sun, 20 May 2012 15:18:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4FB9437D.5050804@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 15:18:21 -0400 From: Michael Scheidell Organization: SECNAP Network Security Corp User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.2.20) Gecko/20110804 Thunderbird/3.1.12 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: References: <4FB8E67C.5030001@FreeBSD.org> <4FB90160.9060002@infracaninophile.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4FB90160.9060002@infracaninophile.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: PORTVERSION=1.0.0b 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, 20 May 2012 19:18:20 -0000 On 5/20/12 10:36 AM, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 20/05/2012 14:41, Michael Scheidell wrote: >> I seem to remember some discussion on using numeric only, and not alpha >> in PORTVERSION string, and would like to address this with maintainer >> unless its just my faulty memory mixing up PORTVERSION/REVISION. >> >> only thing I found ~seems~ to indicate using alpha is ok: >> >> >> >> portlint -abt doesn't complain, but it is a 'new port' and I don't want >> it to start out life with something that will garner larts,pavmail or >> other wise generate public flogging once I commit it. > Try setting DISTVERSION=1.0.0b and let the ports generate PORTVERSION make -V PORTVERSION 1.0.0.b ok, like that? -- Michael Scheidell, CTO >*| * SECNAP Network Security Corporation d: +1.561.948.2259 w: http://people.freebsd.org/~scheidell