Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 16:32:06 +0100 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r304840 - in head/x11: nvidia-driver nvidia-driver-173 nvidia-driver-71 nvidia-driver-96 Message-ID: <CADLo83-eY64UQXpHHER87GK7=bQzyd5D5qKtybiZEUCcRoFZ_w@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201209251523.q8PFNFwb051770@svn.freebsd.org> References: <201209251523.q8PFNFwb051770@svn.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 25 Sep 2012 16:23, "Alexey Dokuchaev" <danfe@freebsd.org> wrote: > > Author: danfe > Date: Tue Sep 25 15:23:14 2012 > New Revision: 304840 > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/304840 > > Log: > Fix the problem that PKGVERSION for 173.14.xx legacy driver went backwards > when it was updated to .35 on the 12th. That moment, it kept PORTREVISION > 1 from the master port. When the master port was updated and PORTREVISION > removed on the 22nd, PKGVERSION of nvidia-driver-173 went backwards as its > PORTREVISION dropped from 1 to 0. While I am at it, provide a comments in > all makefiles that keeping PORTREVISION setting (even when it is seemingly > zero) is important. > > Reported by: erwin > > Modified: > head/x11/nvidia-driver-173/Makefile > head/x11/nvidia-driver-71/Makefile > head/x11/nvidia-driver-96/Makefile > head/x11/nvidia-driver/Makefile > > Modified: head/x11/nvidia-driver-173/Makefile > ============================================================================== > --- head/x11/nvidia-driver-173/Makefile Tue Sep 25 14:55:49 2012 (r304839) > +++ head/x11/nvidia-driver-173/Makefile Tue Sep 25 15:23:14 2012 (r304840) > @@ -6,6 +6,8 @@ > # > > DISTVERSION= 173.14.35 > +# Explicitly set PORTREVISION as it can be overridden by the master port > +PORTREVISION= 1 I don't know if a special comment is needed; this is pretty standard slave behaviour. However, it is a common problem, perhaps we could put a note into the Porter's Handbook in PORTREVISION or master/slave sections? "It is usually incorrect to set PORTREVISION to 0, except in a slave port where it should override the master port" Hm, how best to put that into docspeak? Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo83-eY64UQXpHHER87GK7=bQzyd5D5qKtybiZEUCcRoFZ_w>