Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 00:45:38 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@citusc.usc.edu> To: Roger Hardiman <roger@cs.strath.ac.uk> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Guidelines for new port version variables Message-ID: <20001006004538.A90887@citusc17.usc.edu> In-Reply-To: <39DD7E0E.A45E87BB@cs.strath.ac.uk>; from roger@cs.strath.ac.uk on Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 08:23:58AM %2B0100 References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009170222550.64618-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> <39DD7E0E.A45E87BB@cs.strath.ac.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 08:23:58AM +0100, Roger Hardiman wrote: > Kris, > > > I've got a question on PORTVERSION, REVISION and EPOCH > > I've read the guidelines you emailed out recently. > Of special interest is making sure PORTVERSION increases > so we can check for upgrades. > > I'm stuck with one problem though. > I have a port which is a beta release for version 1.1 of OpenH323 > Tar file for source is openh323_1.1.beta3.tgz > PORTVERSION=1.1b3 > > > The official version 1.1 version has just been released > Tar file for source is openh323_1.1.tgz > and I was going to have a PORTVERSION=1.1 > > But is "1.1" greater than or less than "1.1b3" > > If it is less than 1.1b3, I need PORTEPOCH, > > So, do I need an PORTEPOCH in this case or not? Good question - I don't know off-hand how the versions are sorted. Kris > > Thanks > Roger 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?20001006004538.A90887>