On 8/17/2013 12:03 AM, Matthew D. Fuller wrote: > Hey guys, > > Since databases/rrdmerge showed up in ports, portupgrade seems to have > gotten a bit unhappy with INDEX: > > [Updating the portsdb <format:bdb_btree> [...] > /usr/ports/INDEX-8:19441:rrdmerge-0.0_b05d69bfac64: 0.0_b05d69bfac64: Not in > due form: '<version>[_<revision>][,<epoch>]'. > > (whether the version is itself malformed, or portsdb is being overly > retentive, I leave as an exercise to the readers ;) > >
IMHO the _ should come out and be reserved for PORTREVISION. -- Regards, Bryan Drewery
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
