Summary: | devel/portlint: warn if PORTREVISION=0 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Ports & Packages | Reporter: | edwin |
Component: | Individual Port(s) | Assignee: | Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus> |
Status: | Closed FIXED | ||
Severity: | Affects Only Me | ||
Priority: | Normal | ||
Version: | Latest | ||
Hardware: | Any | ||
OS: | Any |
Description
edwin
2006-01-04 23:20:02 UTC
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. |