Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      29 Sep 2000 00:55:24 -0700
From:      asami@FreeBSD.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami)
To:        obrien@FreeBSD.org
Cc:        Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>, ports@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: Guidelines for new port version variables
Message-ID:  <vqc1yy3k4yb.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
In-Reply-To: "David O'Brien"'s message of "Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:25:46 -0700"
References:  <20000928120548.A89733@dragon.nuxi.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009281415290.66918-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> <20000928172546.A91774@dragon.nuxi.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Guys, we've discussed all this to death the last time around.  Can we
just leave it as it is and move on?

 * From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org>

 * Optionally allowing "_0" would certainly help me remember to deal with
 * this.  If I see it in the Makefile it is *very* easy for me to bump it
 * (ore reset to 0).

I disagree.  PORTREVISION is something that has to be dealt as an
"exception".  Most Makefiles do not set it.  IMO, it is much easier to
remember to reset it to zero if you see something that's usually not
there.

As for increasing PORTREVISION, that is an event-driven act.  You
commit something that changes the way the port behaves with regards to
the rest of the world, you change (or add) PORTREVISION.  I don't
think whether PORTREVISION is already in the Makefile or not makes any
difference.

-PW


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?vqc1yy3k4yb.fsf>