From owner-freebsd-ports Fri Sep 29 13:49:20 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from jade.chc-chimes.com (jade.chc-chimes.com [216.28.46.6]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B260237B66C; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 13:49:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by jade.chc-chimes.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 1B8491C76; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 16:49:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 16:49:18 -0400 From: Bill Fumerola To: David O'Brien Cc: Kris Kennaway , ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Guidelines for new port version variables Message-ID: <20000929164918.L38472@jade.chc-chimes.com> References: <20000928120548.A89733@dragon.nuxi.com> <20000928172551.G38472@jade.chc-chimes.com> <20000928172823.B91774@dragon.nuxi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <20000928172823.B91774@dragon.nuxi.com>; from obrien@FreeBSD.org on Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 05:28:23PM -0700 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 3.3-STABLE i386 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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