Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 19:30:48 -0500 From: Will Andrews <andrews@technologist.com> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Dirk Meyer <dirk.meyer@dinoex.sub.org>, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Indicating patch levels Message-ID: <20000817193048.A338@argon.gryphonsoft.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0008160104060.90191-100000@freefall.freebsd.org>; from kris@FreeBSD.ORG on Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 01:05:55AM -0700 References: <uj/HALBCtu@dmeyer.dinoex.sub.org> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0008160104060.90191-100000@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 01:05:55AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> This is a fair suggestion - bsd.port.mk could only append the suffix if
> it's >0 (I still prefer numerical revisions than arbitrarily-named
> extensions - what happens if you have a secfix and a FreeBSD-specific
> enhancement, do you call it -secfix1-enh1 or something? :)
Important FreeBSD-specific extensions can be given a PATCHLEVEL. I
think something like this is in order:
.if defined(PATCHLEVEL) && PATCHLEVEL > 0
PKGNAME=${PORTNAME}-${PORTVERSION}-${PATCHLEVEL}
.else
PKGNAME=${PORTNAME}-${PORTVERSION}-${PATCHLEVEL}
.endif
Satoshi, I'm in favor of this sort of thing.
Policy deciding whether to have PATCHLEVEL bumped will need to be
decided. Kris, could you make your proposal on this policy?
Greetings,
--
Will Andrews <andrewsw@purdue.edu> <will@FreeBSD.org>
GCS/E/S @d- s+:+ a--- C++ UB++++$ P+ L- E--- W+ N-- !o ?K w---
O- M+ V- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+>+++ t++ 5 X+ R+ tv+ b++ DI+++ D+
G++ e>++++ h! r- y?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000817193048.A338>