port versions

[Ion-Mihai Tetcu]

 [ dropped ale@ this has nothing to do with mysql now ]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:24:48 -0300
Fernan Aguero <fernan at iib.unsam.edu.ar> wrote:

> +----[ Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu at people.tecnik93.com> (18.Jan.2005 22:33):
> |
> | > 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?
> | 
> | No. Reason:
> | 
> | /usr/share/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/makefile-naming.html
> |
> +----]
> 
> I don't have it by that name, but under
> /usr/share/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/x400.html

Possible, I didn't rebuild my docs for some time now.

> As already explained in a previous message, everything that
> is added after the port version, either in the package name
> or when registering the port (usually in /var/db/pkg), come
> from different variables defined in the ports Makefile
> 
> PORTNAME=	abc
> PORTVERSION=	x gets added after portname as -x (abc-x)
> PORTREVISION=	y  gets added as _y (abc-x_y)
> PORTEPOCH=	z  gets added as ,z (abc-x_y,z)

Yes, I know, I maintain a few ports. I just didn't see any reason to
write what's already written in PH. 


-- 
IOnut
Unregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"