Port Version Numbering Question

Brooks Davis brooks at one-eyed-alien.net
Wed Nov 9 11:28:28 PST 2005

On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 01:19:22PM -0600, Mark Kane wrote:
> Hi everyone. I'm nearing completion of my second FreeBSD port, however I
> have a quick question about a version number.
> The version as the author released it is "0.2.6-3". Since this is a new
> port to the FreeBSD ports collection and there was no "0.2.6-1" or
> "0.2.6-2" of this software actually released, I'm not sure if I should
> use PORTREVISION to call it "0.2.6_3" or if I should simply use
> PORTVERSION to call it "". If neither are correct then how would
> I do this properly?

I think is probably right, but not knowing what the authors are
thinking, it's hard to say.  If you just set DISTVERSION=0.2.6-3 I'm
pretty sure PORTVERSION will end up with  I recently discovered
this feature and it's really handy since you can get automatic DISTFILE
setting in many cases where it wouldn't work if you set PORTVERSION.

-- Brooks

Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE.
PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529  9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20051109/3466601b/attachment.bin

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list