From owner-freebsd-ports Thu Sep 28 17:28:32 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (trang.nuxi.com [209.152.133.57]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AECCA37B423; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:28:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from obrien@localhost) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id RAA91819; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:28:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from obrien) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:28:23 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" To: Bill Fumerola Cc: Kris Kennaway , ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Guidelines for new port version variables Message-ID: <20000928172823.B91774@dragon.nuxi.com> Reply-To: obrien@FreeBSD.org References: <20000928120548.A89733@dragon.nuxi.com> <20000928172551.G38472@jade.chc-chimes.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <20000928172551.G38472@jade.chc-chimes.com>; from billf@chimesnet.com on Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 05:25:51PM -0400 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT Organization: The NUXI BSD group X-Pgp-Rsa-Fingerprint: B7 4D 3E E9 11 39 5F A3 90 76 5D 69 58 D9 98 7A X-Pgp-Rsa-Keyid: 1024/34F9F9D5 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 05:25:51PM -0400, Bill Fumerola wrote: > > The "_0" is implicit..I didnt think the extra spam on the majority of ..snip.. > We won't have FreeBSD 4.2.1 just because we had a 4.1.1, and we won't have > FreeBSD 4.2.0, because the .0 is implied. "_" != ".", now you are wanting our users to realize that "_" is an alternate spelling of ".". I think that might be a streach. It is most logical to always have "_X". Looking at bsd.port.mk I see "PORTREVISION ?= _0". Thus I guess my argument is done as all packages *will* have the _0. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message