Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 20 May 2012 20:25:21 +0100
From:      Chris Rees <crees@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Michael Scheidell <scheidell@freebsd.org>
Cc:        freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: PORTVERSION=1.0.0b
Message-ID:  <CADLo839p4ongYuW9h-qZsDaE=XRM5ETN5rjSrNmp-mMov8LfPw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FB943B0.6040501@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <4FB8E67C.5030001@FreeBSD.org> <4FB90160.9060002@infracaninophile.co.uk> <4FB9437D.5050804@FreeBSD.org> <4FB943B0.6040501@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 20 May 2012 20:19, Michael Scheidell <scheidell@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On 5/20/12 3:18 PM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
>>
>> Try setting DISTVERSION=1.0.0b and let the ports generate PORTVERSION
>> make -V PORTVERSION
>> 1.0.0.b
>>
>> ok, like that?
>>
> any porters handbook, committers habndbook documentation on that? as in why
> '1.0.0.b' is preferred over '1.0.0b'?

Because as much as possible, we try to standardise things like version
numbers and rc scripts, so people get a more consistent experience,
rather than bowing to the particular upstream/maintainer's view of how
versions work.

Chris



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo839p4ongYuW9h-qZsDaE=XRM5ETN5rjSrNmp-mMov8LfPw>