From owner-freebsd-ports  Wed Apr 30 02:35:19 1997
Return-Path: <owner-ports>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id CAA18403
          for ports-outgoing; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 02:35:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nic.follonett.no (nic.follonett.no [194.198.43.10])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id CAA18398
          for <ports@freebsd.org>; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 02:35:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost) by nic.follonett.no (8.8.5/8.8.3) with UUCP id LAA28683 for ports@freebsd.org; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 11:33:19 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from oo7 (pc136.dimaga.com [192.0.0.136]) by dimaga.com (8.7.5/8.7.2) with SMTP id KAA07513 for <ports@freebsd.org>; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 10:38:52 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970430093850.00fc1c10@dimaga.com>
X-Sender: eivind@dimaga.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 09:38:51 +0200
To: ports@freebsd.org
From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@dimaga.com>
Subject: Ports/Version Numbers
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Why are we using version numbers as parts of our port-names?  This allow
overwriting part of an existing port (e.g. samba 1.9.14) with a new version
of the same port, and with no warnings.  Are there any benefits beyond the
fact that the presently installed version number is obvious (which we
probably could fix anyway)?

Eivind