https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193849
--- Comment #7 from Jan Beich <jbe...@vfemail.net> --- Created attachment 147610 --> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147610&action=edit |poudriere testport -P| log (9.3R i386) It seems the Porter's Handbook agrees with portlint(1) but I cannot find actual rationale. However, looking at DISTVERSION implementation it should work fine with both set. And attached smoke test log confirms my conjecture. $ portlint -C FATAL: Makefile: either PORTVERSION or DISTVERSION must be specified, not both. 1 fatal error and 0 warnings found. Porter's Handbook says: > Only one of PORTVERSION and DISTVERSION can be set at a time. If DISTVERSION > does not derive a correct PORTVERSION, do not use DISTVERSION, set > PORTVERSION to the right value and set DISTNAME with PORTNAME with either > some computation of PORTVERSION or the verbatim upstream version. # Mk/bsd.port.mk has .if defined(PORTVERSION) .if ${PORTVERSION:M*[-_,]*}x != x IGNORE= PORTVERSION ${PORTVERSION} may not contain '-' '_' or ',' .endif DISTVERSION?= ${PORTVERSION:S/:/::/g} .elif defined(DISTVERSION) PORTVERSION= ${DISTVERSION:tl:C/([a-z])[a-z]+/\1/g:C/([0-9])([a-z])/\1.\2/g:C/:(.)/\1/g:C/[^a-z0-9+]+/./g} .endif -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
