Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 21:34:07 +0200 From: Oliver Heesakkers <freebsd@heesakkers.info> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PORTVERSION=1.0.0b Message-ID: <4275897.ij89MR5bXg@pcoliver.heesakkers.info> In-Reply-To: <4FB945E8.1080603@FreeBSD.org> References: <4FB8E67C.5030001@FreeBSD.org> <CADLo839p4ongYuW9h-qZsDaE=XRM5ETN5rjSrNmp-mMov8LfPw@mail.gmail.com> <4FB945E8.1080603@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Op zo 20 mei 2012 15:28:40 schreef Michael Scheidell: > On 5/20/12 3:25 PM, Chris Rees wrote: > >> 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. > > so, we need to update committers/porters handbook, or is this some > secret thing? another of those 'we won't document it, but we sure as > hell will publically lart you if you disobay the unspoken, undocumented > secred code ?' > > or, like I asked 'I need to give a link to submitter to show him this is > the best way to do it'. > > I guess I wait till the email archive is finished and point him to > chris's post? > I think you don't want 1.0.0.b, since the .b will signify a beta and 1.0.0 > 1.0.0.b. That doesn't look like how upstream means it to be. http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/makefile-naming.html#AEN752 http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=165767#reply6
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4275897.ij89MR5bXg>