Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 21:23:13 -0800 From: Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com> To: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> Cc: Walter Schwarzenfeld <w.schwarzenfeld@utanet.at>, FreeBSD Ports ML <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: "Confused" PORTREVISION Message-ID: <CAN6yY1ukeKB%2BcEi%2BtgSEbsse1RLjxOb3O9Ut5oowH5GZUtwxTA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <59143D35-B810-4670-8F78-C8D7F0CF91B6@adamw.org> References: <42ac3597-f82a-ef8d-0d8d-f6a7c5a84d46@utanet.at> <2abbc227-f2da-69e0-1d0d-1b872bbc475f@utanet.at> <59143D35-B810-4670-8F78-C8D7F0CF91B6@adamw.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> wrote: > On 24 Dec, 2017, at 20:03, Walter Schwarzenfeld <w.schwarzenfeld@utanet.at> >> wrote: >> >> But >> >> RUBY_RELVERSION= 2.3.6 >> RUBY_PORTREVISION= 0 <= >> RUBY_PORTEPOCH= 1 >> RUBY_PATCHLEVEL= 0 >> RUBY23= "" # PLIST_SUB helpers >> >> PORTREVISION=0 confuses pkg version >> >> pkg version |grep ruby23 >> ruby23-2.3.6,1 < >> >> this is the version which is installed. >> > > PORTREVISION=0 is treated as if it were unset. Some people prefer using > that construct because it keeps line numbers consistent in the SVN history. > > # Adam The Porters Handbook now calls for the use of portrevision=0. -- Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer E-mail: rkoberman@gmail.com PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAN6yY1ukeKB%2BcEi%2BtgSEbsse1RLjxOb3O9Ut5oowH5GZUtwxTA>