From owner-freebsd-ports Fri Oct 6 0:45: 4 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from citusc17.usc.edu (citusc17.usc.edu [128.125.38.177]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E38537B503 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 00:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from kris@localhost) by citusc17.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA90905; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 00:45:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 00:45:38 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway To: Roger Hardiman Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Guidelines for new port version variables Message-ID: <20001006004538.A90887@citusc17.usc.edu> References: <39DD7E0E.A45E87BB@cs.strath.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <39DD7E0E.A45E87BB@cs.strath.ac.uk>; from roger@cs.strath.ac.uk on Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 08:23:58AM +0100 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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