Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 11:28:26 -0800 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> To: Mark Kane <mark@mkproductions.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Port Version Numbering Question Message-ID: <20051109192826.GI12837@odin.ac.hmc.edu> In-Reply-To: <43724BBA.10006@mkproductions.org> References: <43724BBA.10006@mkproductions.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--kH8JNVvasRCCW1Oz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 01:19:22PM -0600, Mark Kane wrote: > Hi everyone. I'm nearing completion of my second FreeBSD port, however I > have a quick question about a version number. >=20 > The version as the author released it is "0.2.6-3". Since this is a new > port to the FreeBSD ports collection and there was no "0.2.6-1" or > "0.2.6-2" of this software actually released, I'm not sure if I should > use PORTREVISION to call it "0.2.6_3" or if I should simply use > PORTVERSION to call it "0.2.6.3". If neither are correct then how would > I do this properly? I think 0.2.6.3 is probably right, but not knowing what the authors are thinking, it's hard to say. If you just set DISTVERSION=3D0.2.6-3 I'm pretty sure PORTVERSION will end up with 0.2.6.3. I recently discovered this feature and it's really handy since you can get automatic DISTFILE setting in many cases where it wouldn't work if you set PORTVERSION. -- Brooks --=20 Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 --kH8JNVvasRCCW1Oz Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDck3ZXY6L6fI4GtQRAtPpAJ0Ve69EUF1RIR2uxZKR/QJG6F6OGQCgmT8V tgwV+tPfgEh3Nbgs18K9B2M= =zMuM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --kH8JNVvasRCCW1Oz--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051109192826.GI12837>