Revision: 86707 http://trac.macports.org/changeset/86707 Author: ryandesign@macports.org Date: 2011-11-01 09:00:28 -0700 (Tue, 01 Nov 2011) Log Message: ----------- portfile-keywords.xml: rewrite epoch section a bit Modified Paths: -------------- trunk/doc-new/guide/xml/portfile-keywords.xml Modified: trunk/doc-new/guide/xml/portfile-keywords.xml =================================================================== --- trunk/doc-new/guide/xml/portfile-keywords.xml 2011-11-01 16:00:07 UTC (rev 86706) +++ trunk/doc-new/guide/xml/portfile-keywords.xml 2011-11-01 16:00:28 UTC (rev 86707) @@ -72,23 +72,19 @@ <term>epoch</term> <listitem> - <para>An optional keyword (default value is 0) that may be used when - ports are updated to a version that is numerically less than the - previous version. For example 1.10 -> 1.2 or 20070928 -> 1.0. An - epoch ensures that port version comparisons work correctly in these - cases. Often the epoch is formatted like a date, but it can simply be - a number such as 1.</para> + <para>An optional keyword (default value is 0) that must be used when + a port is updated to a version that is numerically less than the + previous version, for example 1.10 -> 1.2 or 20070928 -> 1.0. + Some Portfile authors have used large epoch values that look like a + date, but there is no reason to do so. The epoch is simply an unsigned + integer, and the only requirement is that it never be decreased.</para> - <programlisting>epoch 20080924</programlisting> - <programlisting>epoch 1</programlisting> <note> - <para>An epoch is not needed for most ports. If an epoch is used it - must never be decreased or removed even when a port's version is - updated; this would cause port version comparisons to be incorrect - since epochs take precedence over versions once epochs have been - used.</para> + <para>An epoch is not needed for most ports. If a port's version + numbers advance in normal dotted-decimal sequence, there is no reason + to add an epoch.</para> </note> </listitem> </varlistentry>