"Confused" PORTREVISION

[Adam Weinberger]

> On 24 Dec, 2017, at 23:09, Kevin Oberman <rkoberman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Adam Weinberger <adamw at adamw.org> wrote:
> On 24 Dec, 2017, at 22:23, Kevin Oberman <rkoberman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Adam Weinberger <adamw at adamw.org> wrote:
> On 24 Dec, 2017, at 20:03, Walter Schwarzenfeld  
> <w.schwarzenfeld at utanet.at> wrote:
>
> But
>
> RUBY_RELVERSION=        2.3.6
> RUBY_PORTREVISION=      0     <=
> RUBY_PORTEPOCH=         1
> RUBY_PATCHLEVEL=        0
> RUBY23=                 ""      # PLIST_SUB helpers
>
> PORTREVISION=0 confuses pkg version
>
> pkg version |grep ruby23
> ruby23-2.3.6,1                   <
>
> this is the version which is installed.
>
> PORTREVISION=0 is treated as if it were unset. Some people prefer using  
> that construct because it keeps line numbers consistent in the SVN  
> history.
>
> # Adam
>
> The Porters Handbook now calls for the use of portrevision=0.
>
> It does? I wasn't aware of that.
>
> # Adam
>
> I learned about this when i submitted a port update to a new release and  
> the committer added PORTREVISION=0. He told me that it was now the  
> approved way if doing ports.
>
> 5.2.3.1
>
> PORTREVISION is a monotonically increasing value which is reset to 0 with  
> every increase of DISTVERSION, typically every time there is a new  
> official vendor release. If PORTREVISION is non-zero, the value is  
> appended to the package name. Changes toPORTREVISION are used by  
> automated tools like pkg-version(8) to determine that a new package is  
> available.

So that block isn't saying that 'PORTREVISION=0' is the official thing.  
It's saying that the value needs to be reset to 0. Removing the line  
entirely is still the preferred way of resetting it to zero.

# Adam


--
Adam Weinberger
adamw at adamw.org
http://www.adamw.org