From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Mon Dec 25 07:18:51 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 126A2EA4A55 for ; Mon, 25 Dec 2017 07:18:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kob6558@gmail.com) Received: from mail-vk0-x232.google.com (mail-vk0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C292D7A643 for ; Mon, 25 Dec 2017 07:18:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kob6558@gmail.com) Received: by mail-vk0-x232.google.com with SMTP id w75so19212976vkd.7 for ; Sun, 24 Dec 2017 23:18:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=TPHFT5lHRb1g46WY7HrDEgqDudmz7UICl4rlwFg6Xgs=; b=OZec27JRQFO3pw7ZL5BIO3DafeM6Y8Lw+VlfKPgTfQmz+4ZjxIbJFl/hopWWt2uSb3 GcbME5CPQ7anVaDyejH17CHMbQ0vUo28lSzNxBd+JmSHhej57DcgMVK9GDthBIkh13HR ZvG+DInMky3GojGpIbvqGjEJYx7FFtKyy6FJaxxtNAKEQxqrGTNhpXhPGlaZB60BhVas QC5pSq30tYm2/D2TZuJyTkyIQCGoQwVhSSNN1ee/oBN4lJPug+4X0CjZei7iLodwrpYL /kEM8vJP0ix02aaEGvRxn9AwaB33QlmV2DoBPf5zQxOe8PUbk6L8Miau0UTt0lWm1ucc 4rTQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TPHFT5lHRb1g46WY7HrDEgqDudmz7UICl4rlwFg6Xgs=; b=EX+z3i9hNGJc6C4bUN4sjQrOzsy0edhZxkW0nTJ2+IAJ3yfODjQ8au/UWk4ew0Acsz Rf3I9b5Uu7UpFhALEewbvQpAZ85eLsPikdlAwLw1pwBOSo54Pdocle8MGUmBYwmJUIzg +Ojz0Rh3aYpmkPw6FFH8cRTpY/HNHs8ploWYHVh5XHfL+kqOMlpelkAmI9bKXr6rUVcz vMSaCEK9jAr8GGMOdPnqf5AUh6PoLLeVfpjR77jLmEZmefuWB4pxEZGDca7ZBDZKsB9y vKSQjlaeehLexGcSlj8Vi6RBzzvAbRnvqqFqAU2OoRKri3objS3i36QdnE1YXErlp1vm x7Yg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mLduDlo3VQvko/vgdLWBFbIrEERNz8+0+zRwerTDPCpP3+TpY7E XlEcfYLiHrYb20PYoS/o3Pjk0TiQIv+vKmqamfTtWphX X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotq/kjGKo+dJ9HSqNQgg+A6QRAgOlbsvaNMrTGHpHn9+/VNco5d2Bi+gXWv4xWnJfgOeDIUbR5NTzS2ytK6lyU= X-Received: by 10.31.67.134 with SMTP id q128mr20920065vka.30.1514186329143; Sun, 24 Dec 2017 23:18:49 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: kob6558@gmail.com Received: by 10.103.147.156 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Dec 2017 23:18:48 -0800 (PST) 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> <5C851835-A1A7-4EED-AEDD-4D587B499EAD@adamw.org> <43F4B3DC-C651-40E0-81D9-613193272BEB@adamw.org> From: Kevin Oberman Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 23:18:48 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: wxnhpD2xEIPXj_GTQgmr3ZNxaDQ Message-ID: Subject: Re: "Confused" PORTREVISION To: Adam Weinberger Cc: Walter Schwarzenfeld , FreeBSD Ports ML Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.25 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 07:18:51 -0000 On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Adam Weinberger wrote: > On 24 Dec, 2017, at 23:09, Kevin Oberman wrote: >> >> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Adam Weinberger wrote: >> On 24 Dec, 2017, at 22:23, Kevin Oberman wrote: >> >> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Adam Weinberger 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