Date: 29 Sep 2000 00:55:24 -0700 From: asami@FreeBSD.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) To: obrien@FreeBSD.org Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Guidelines for new port version variables Message-ID: <vqc1yy3k4yb.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> In-Reply-To: "David O'Brien"'s message of "Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:25:46 -0700" References: <20000928120548.A89733@dragon.nuxi.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009281415290.66918-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> <20000928172546.A91774@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Guys, we've discussed all this to death the last time around. Can we just leave it as it is and move on? * From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> * Optionally allowing "_0" would certainly help me remember to deal with * this. If I see it in the Makefile it is *very* easy for me to bump it * (ore reset to 0). I disagree. PORTREVISION is something that has to be dealt as an "exception". Most Makefiles do not set it. IMO, it is much easier to remember to reset it to zero if you see something that's usually not there. As for increasing PORTREVISION, that is an event-driven act. You commit something that changes the way the port behaves with regards to the rest of the world, you change (or add) PORTREVISION. I don't think whether PORTREVISION is already in the Makefile or not makes any difference. -PW 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?vqc1yy3k4yb.fsf>