On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 07:08:29PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Mon, 13 Jul 2009, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > >> - Update to checkpoint release 1.2.0_20090223 > > This change is wrong; PORTREVISION should not be used to encode any > > software version part; its sole purpose for ports infrastructure only. > > For complex vendor versions, DISTVERSION should be used instead. Right > > now, for instance, you've essentially made impossible to bump PORTREVISION, > > shall it be required for any reason, without introducing ugly hacks. > > This sounds very familiar to the status quo I maintained with the lang/gcc > ports for some years which I then resolved a few months ago. Philip, you > may want to have a look at lang/gcc43 for an example how I addressed this > there -- and if you find improvements, let me know. ;-)
In your case, Gerald, you seem to deal this the fact that GCC people drop minor .4 version for their snapshots, e.g. for version 4.3.4.%date% snapshot would be 4.3-%date% as opposed to 4.3.4-%date% (the latter would allow you to user DISTVERSION without cryptic VERSIONSTRING hack). In Philip's case, DISTVERSION should be enought, I guess. ./danfe _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
