Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 16:49:18 -0400 From: Bill Fumerola <billf@chimesnet.com> To: David O'Brien <obrien@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Guidelines for new port version variables Message-ID: <20000929164918.L38472@jade.chc-chimes.com> In-Reply-To: <20000928172823.B91774@dragon.nuxi.com>; from obrien@FreeBSD.org on Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 05:28:23PM -0700 References: <20000928120548.A89733@dragon.nuxi.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009281415290.66918-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> <20000928172551.G38472@jade.chc-chimes.com> <20000928172823.B91774@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 05:28:23PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> "_" != ".", now you are wanting our users to realize that "_" is an
> alternate spelling of ".". I think that might be a streach. It is most
> logical to always have "_X". Looking at bsd.port.mk I see
> "PORTREVISION ?= _0".
You missed a very important part of bsd.port.mk, namely the != 0.
[hawk-billf] /usr/ports/net/ethereal > ls -l ethereal-0.8.10.tgz
-rw-r--r-- 1 root billf 1027376 Sep 29 16:40 ethereal-0.8.10.tgz
[hawk-billf] /usr/ports/net/ethereal > grep PORTREVISION /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk
PORTREVISION?= 0
.if ${PORTREVISION} != 0
_SUF1= _${PORTREVISION}
[hawk-billf] /usr/ports/net/ethereal >
> Thus I guess my argument is done as all packages *will* have the _0.
Well, I'll take 1 of 2.
--
Bill Fumerola - Network Architect, BOFH / Chimes, Inc.
billf@chimesnet.com / billf@FreeBSD.org
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?20000929164918.L38472>