Portlint doesn't complain when PORTREVISION=0. Of course this is a theoretical excersize, and a matter of taste, but I don't really consider PORTREVISION=0 a nice thing to have in the ports Makefile.
Responsible Changed From-To: freebsd-ports-bugs->marcus Over to maintainer
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 10:16:45AM +1100, Edwin Groothuis wrote: > Portlint doesn't complain when PORTREVISION=0. > > Of course this is a theoretical excersize, and a matter of > taste, but I don't really consider PORTREVISION=0 a nice > thing to have in the ports Makefile. This is sometimes needed in a slave port to avoid inheriting the PORTREVISION from a masterport. In fact, it could be argued that _all_ slave ports should always set PORTREVISION. (This can avoid the 'port going backwards' problem). Therefore I don't think we should do this.
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 06:53:44PM -0600, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 10:16:45AM +1100, Edwin Groothuis wrote: > > Portlint doesn't complain when PORTREVISION=0. > > > > Of course this is a theoretical excersize, and a matter of > > taste, but I don't really consider PORTREVISION=0 a nice > > thing to have in the ports Makefile. > > This is sometimes needed in a slave port to avoid inheriting the PORTREVISION > from a masterport. In fact, it could be argued that _all_ slave ports > should always set PORTREVISION. (This can avoid the 'port going backwards' > problem). A slave port will not include bsd.port.{,pre,post}.mk. So any port which doesn't have this in the Makefile is a non-slave port, so the check can still go on for them. Edwin -- Edwin Groothuis | Personal website: http://www.mavetju.org edwin@mavetju.org | Weblog: http://weblog.barnet.com.au/edwin/
State Changed From-To: open->closed Implemented in 2.8.4.