Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 15:18:21 -0400 From: Michael Scheidell <scheidell@FreeBSD.org> To: <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PORTVERSION=1.0.0b Message-ID: <4FB9437D.5050804@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4FB90160.9060002@infracaninophile.co.uk> References: <4FB8E67C.5030001@FreeBSD.org> <4FB90160.9060002@infracaninophile.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 5/20/12 10:36 AM, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 20/05/2012 14:41, Michael Scheidell wrote: >> I seem to remember some discussion on using numeric only, and not alpha >> in PORTVERSION string, and would like to address this with maintainer >> unless its just my faulty memory mixing up PORTVERSION/REVISION. >> >> only thing I found ~seems~ to indicate using alpha is ok: >> >> <http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/makefile-naming.html#AEN504>; >> >> portlint -abt doesn't complain, but it is a 'new port' and I don't want >> it to start out life with something that will garner larts,pavmail or >> other wise generate public flogging once I commit it. > Try setting DISTVERSION=1.0.0b and let the ports generate PORTVERSION make -V PORTVERSION 1.0.0.b ok, like that? -- Michael Scheidell, CTO >*| * SECNAP Network Security Corporation d: +1.561.948.2259 w: http://people.freebsd.org/~scheidell
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FB9437D.5050804>