Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 02:28:55 +0100 From: Gerhard Gonter <ggonter@gmail.com> To: Bill Coffman <bill.coffman@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: port versions Message-ID: <5cfbc4730501181728142e1f1@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6f9c15f805011817175e3e821@mail.gmail.com> References: <6f9c15f8050118105132e37e02@mail.gmail.com> <41ED88C0.1090805@FreeBSD.org> <6f9c15f805011817175e3e821@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:17:46 -0800, Bill Coffman <bill.coffman@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the info. > > Since we're on the subject, I was wondering about other conventions > for port versions. Sometimes it's "_1" or "_2" and sometimes it's > like "p5-DBD-mysql40-2.9004_1". Is there any reason for all these, or > are they just left to the variable discretion of the port maintainer? I guess, you are referring to the package and not to the source distribution file. In this case, the _1 reflects the port's revision. For instance, p5-DBD-mysql40 picks up these variables from the p5-DBD-mysql port: PORTNAME= DBD-mysql PORTVERSION= 2.9004 PORTREVISION= 1 HTH, GG
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5cfbc4730501181728142e1f1>