From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Oct 17 18:13:40 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E06D016A46B
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:13:40 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from weak.local (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 450F313C43E
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:13:39 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org)
Message-ID: <471650D4.8060709@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:13:40 +0200
From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
References: <20071017180852.GA23043@demeter.hydra>
In-Reply-To: <20071017180852.GA23043@demeter.hydra>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: Is the bison port moving in reverse?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:13:41 -0000

Chad Perrin wrote:
> I get this:
> 
>   # portversion -v | grep -v =
>   bison-1.75_2,1              >  succeeds port (port has 2.3_3)
> 
> Any idea why?  Judging by the numbers, I'd think that > should be <
> instead.  Nothing in /usr/ports/UPDATING seems to apply here.
> 

Looks like PORTEPOCH was incorrectly removed.  Talk to maintainer.

Kris