PORTVERSION=1.0.0b

[Michael Scheidell]

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