Perfect! Thanks for the replies and the clarification, guys!
On 12/11/18 11:21 AM, Stefan Esser wrote:
> Am 11.12.18 um 18:51 schrieb Janky Jay, III:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> After a portsnap to pull ${latest), I'm seeing the following:
>>
>> clamav-0.101.0_2 < needs updating (index has 0.100.2,1)
>>
>> The version that is claiming to be the latest appears to be a version
>> regression. Am I wrong here? I checked the ClamAV site and it appears
>> version 0.101.0 is, in fact, the latest. So, I'm wondering if there was
>> possibly a revision issue that's causing this?
>
> The ,1 at the end of the port to be installed indicates a new port epoch,
> which is used to enforce an "upgrade" to a lower version number.
>
> This is typically done if a port upgrade has been revoked due to problems
> with the new version.
>
> In this particular case the commit log says:
>
> r487064 | antoine | 2018-12-09 18:33:26 +0100 (Sun, 09 Dec 2018) | 6 lines
>
> Downgrade to 0.100.2
> Upstream plans to release version 0.101.1 which fixes header issues in January
> 2019
>
> Regards, STefan
> Regards, Janky Jay, III
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
