On 24 Dec, 2017, at 23:09, Kevin Oberman <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Adam Weinberger <[email protected]> wrote:
On 24 Dec, 2017, at 22:23, Kevin Oberman <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Adam Weinberger <[email protected]> wrote:
On 24 Dec, 2017, at 20:03, Walter Schwarzenfeld
<[email protected]> wrote:
But
RUBY_RELVERSION= 2.3.6
RUBY_PORTREVISION= 0 <=
RUBY_PORTEPOCH= 1
RUBY_PATCHLEVEL= 0
RUBY23= "" # PLIST_SUB helpers
PORTREVISION=0 confuses pkg version
pkg version |grep ruby23
ruby23-2.3.6,1 <
this is the version which is installed.
PORTREVISION=0 is treated as if it were unset. Some people prefer using
that construct because it keeps line numbers consistent in the SVN
history.
# Adam
The Porters Handbook now calls for the use of portrevision=0.
It does? I wasn't aware of that.
# Adam
I learned about this when i submitted a port update to a new release and
the committer added PORTREVISION=0. He told me that it was now the
approved way if doing ports.
5.2.3.1
PORTREVISION is a monotonically increasing value which is reset to 0 with
every increase of DISTVERSION, typically every time there is a new
official vendor release. If PORTREVISION is non-zero, the value is
appended to the package name. Changes toPORTREVISION are used by
automated tools like pkg-version(8) to determine that a new package is
available.
So that block isn't saying that 'PORTREVISION=0' is the official thing.
It's saying that the value needs to be reset to 0. Removing the line
entirely is still the preferred way of resetting it to zero.
# Adam
--
Adam Weinberger
[email protected]
http://www.adamw.org
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
