On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 23:00:27 -0500, Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For future reference, take a look at how I handle this in the BIND
ports. If you'd named the _port_ 0.3.a1_2, then when 0.3 comes out,
pkg_version is smart enough to know that it's > 0.3.a*.
It is too late, which in
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 09:00:27PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> For future reference, take a look at how I handle this in the BIND
> ports. If you'd named the _port_ 0.3.a1_2, then when 0.3 comes out,
> pkg_version is smart enough to know that it's > 0.3.a*.
>
> hth,
>
> Doug
>
> PS, PORTEPOCH
For future reference, take a look at how I handle this in the BIND
ports. If you'd named the _port_ 0.3.a1_2, then when 0.3 comes out,
pkg_version is smart enough to know that it's > 0.3.a*.
hth,
Doug
PS, PORTEPOCH is evil, and must die.
Jeremy Messenger wrote:
Fixed by add PORTEPOCH, tha
Fixed by add PORTEPOCH, thanks for report.
Cheers,
Mezz
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 12:54:09 -0500, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
** The following ports have a version number that sorts before a
previous one **
For many package tools to work correctly, it is of utmost importance
that
version numbe
** The following ports have a version number that sorts before a previous one **
For many package tools to work correctly, it is of utmost importance that
version numbers of a port form a monotonic increasing sequence over time.
Refer to the FreeBSD Porter's Handbook, 'Package Naming Convention
