Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 12:05:48 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Guidelines for new port version variables Message-ID: <20000928120548.A89733@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009170222550.64618-100000@freefall.freebsd.org>; from kris@FreeBSD.org on Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 02:25:14AM -0700 References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009170222550.64618-100000@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 02:25:14AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Packages names are constructed according to the following system:
>
> ${PORTNAME}-${PORTVERSION}[_${PORTREVISION}][,${PORTEPOCH}]
>
> 1) PORTREVISION
>
> The PORTREVISION variable is a monotonically increasing value which is
> reset to 0 with every increase of PORTVERSION (i.e. every time a new
> official vendor release is made), and appended to the package name if
> non-zero. PORTREVISION is increased each time a change is made to the
> FreeBSD port which significantly affects the content or stucture of
> the derived package.
Why isn't it explicitly set to "0" or "1" at the start? IMO we should
have a consistent package name. This would require _${PORTREVISION}.
Otherwise there can be problems with inconsiently named dirs in
/var/db/pkg
> Examples of when PORTREVISION should be bumped:
>
> * Addition of patches to correct security vulnerabilities,
> bugs, or to add new functionality to the FreeBSD port.
>
> * Changes to the port makefile to enable or disable
> compile-time options in the package.
Both of these imply to me that any port with patches/ should start off as
"_1".
--
-- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
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?20000928120548.A89733>