Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 06:09:26 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Mark Felder <feld@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org, Niclas Zeising <zeising@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r349818 - head/www/nginx Message-ID: <20140409060926.GA94220@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <C72A0BB6-90BF-4456-ABD1-5F51AD352946@FreeBSD.org> References: <201404010040.s310e5en074822@svn.freebsd.org> <5342F077.8000105@freebsd.org> <C72A0BB6-90BF-4456-ABD1-5F51AD352946@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 09:32:42AM -0500, Mark Felder wrote: > I'm not entirely sure, but maybe I misunderstood the behavior. Here was > the chain of events: Presuming that your mentor had explained[*] to you the differences between PORTVERSION, DISTVERSION, PORTREVISION, and PORTEPOCH, > - Update made to www/nginx that should require a PORTREVISION bump > - Couldn't bump PORTREVISION and remove PORTEPOCH Could you explain what exactly do you mean by "couldn't bump PORTREVISION"? What prevented it from getting bumped? > - Bumped PORTEPOCH instead [*] Your mentor should have also mentioned that PORTEPOCH bumps should be generally avoided, as it can never go back (well, there is a way to hack around it, but it requires renaming the package, which makes it even more ugly and discouraged). ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140409060926.GA94220>