Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:28:23 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> To: Bill Fumerola <billf@chimesnet.com> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Guidelines for new port version variables Message-ID: <20000928172823.B91774@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20000928172551.G38472@jade.chc-chimes.com>; from billf@chimesnet.com on Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 05:25:51PM -0400 References: <20000928120548.A89733@dragon.nuxi.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009281415290.66918-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> <20000928172551.G38472@jade.chc-chimes.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 05:25:51PM -0400, Bill Fumerola wrote: > > The "_0" is implicit..I didnt think the extra spam on the majority of ..snip.. > We won't have FreeBSD 4.2.1 just because we had a 4.1.1, and we won't have > FreeBSD 4.2.0, because the .0 is implied. "_" != ".", 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". Thus I guess my argument is done as all packages *will* have the _0. -- -- David (obrien@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?20000928172823.B91774>