Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 23:18:48 -0800 From: Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com> To: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> Cc: Walter Schwarzenfeld <w.schwarzenfeld@utanet.at>, FreeBSD Ports ML <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: "Confused" PORTREVISION Message-ID: <CAN6yY1tekhPMajS6gwiC4wetP6RadpofFRwX_uR3sJ-%2BAVHwog@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <43F4B3DC-C651-40E0-81D9-613193272BEB@adamw.org> References: <42ac3597-f82a-ef8d-0d8d-f6a7c5a84d46@utanet.at> <2abbc227-f2da-69e0-1d0d-1b872bbc475f@utanet.at> <59143D35-B810-4670-8F78-C8D7F0CF91B6@adamw.org> <CAN6yY1ukeKB%2BcEi%2BtgSEbsse1RLjxOb3O9Ut5oowH5GZUtwxTA@mail.gmail.com> <5C851835-A1A7-4EED-AEDD-4D587B499EAD@adamw.org> <CAN6yY1vJHAp%2Bbf%2Bu5oUNzORqKcfvz%2BRcLZU-wT7nuRVfWX6w=g@mail.gmail.com> <43F4B3DC-C651-40E0-81D9-613193272BEB@adamw.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> wrote: > On 24 Dec, 2017, at 23:09, Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> wrote: >> On 24 Dec, 2017, at 22:23, Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> wrote: >> On 24 Dec, 2017, at 20:03, Walter Schwarzenfeld < >> w.schwarzenfeld@utanet.at> wrote: >> >> But >> >> RUBY_RELVERSION= 2.3.6 >> RUBY_PORTREVISION= 0 <= >> RUBY_PORTEPOCH= 1 >> RUBY_PATCHLEVEL= 0 >> RUBY23= "" # PLIST_SUB helpers >> >> PORTREVISION=0 confuses pkg version >> >> pkg version |grep ruby23 >> ruby23-2.3.6,1 < >> >> this is the version which is installed. >> >> PORTREVISION=0 is treated as if it were unset. Some people prefer using >> that construct because it keeps line numbers consistent in the SVN history. >> >> # Adam >> >> The Porters Handbook now calls for the use of portrevision=0. >> >> It does? I wasn't aware of that. >> >> # Adam >> >> I learned about this when i submitted a port update to a new release and >> the committer added PORTREVISION=0. He told me that it was now the approved >> way if doing ports. >> >> 5.2.3.1 >> >> PORTREVISION is a monotonically increasing value which is reset to 0 with >> every increase of DISTVERSION, typically every time there is a new official >> vendor release. If PORTREVISION is non-zero, the value is appended to the >> package name. Changes toPORTREVISION are used by automated tools like >> pkg-version(8) to determine that a new package is available. >> > > So that block isn't saying that 'PORTREVISION=0' is the official thing. > It's saying that the value needs to be reset to 0. Removing the line > entirely is still the preferred way of resetting it to zero. > > # Adam > > > -- > Adam Weinberger > adamw@adamw.org > http://www.adamw.org > I don't see how it can be read that way. The It says that it is bumped every time the port is modified (sort of, as there is specific detail on whether it is bumped) and reset to 0 when the DISTVERSION changes. Nothing says or implies that it should be removed to do the reset. I think it is quite clear. I also am seeing this in many other ports including a couple I have submitted. -- Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer E-mail: rkoberman@gmail.com PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAN6yY1tekhPMajS6gwiC4wetP6RadpofFRwX_uR3sJ-%2BAVHwog>