On Jan 8, 2008, at 15:51, ricci@macports.org wrote:
Modified: trunk/dports/print/libpaper/Portfile =================================================================== --- trunk/dports/print/libpaper/Portfile 2008-01-08 21:48:43 UTC (rev 32595) +++ trunk/dports/print/libpaper/Portfile 2008-01-08 21:51:10 UTC (rev 32596) @@ -2,8 +2,8 @@
PortSystem 1.0 name libpaper -version 1.1.14-3 -set base_version 1.1.14 +version 1.1.21 +set base_version 1.1.21 revision 1
FYI: Instead of listing the version number twice, you could list it just once in ${version} and compute it for ${base_version}, like this: version 1.1.21 set base_version [lindex [split ${version} -] 0] Also, when you increase the port's version, don't forget to drop the revision down to 0 (or remove the revision line entirely which does the same thing).
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 04:15:22PM -0600, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Jan 8, 2008, at 15:51, ricci@macports.org wrote:
Modified: trunk/dports/print/libpaper/Portfile =================================================================== --- trunk/dports/print/libpaper/Portfile 2008-01-08 21:48:43 UTC (rev 32595) +++ trunk/dports/print/libpaper/Portfile 2008-01-08 21:51:10 UTC (rev 32596) @@ -2,8 +2,8 @@
PortSystem 1.0 name libpaper -version 1.1.14-3 -set base_version 1.1.14 +version 1.1.21 +set base_version 1.1.21 revision 1
FYI: Instead of listing the version number twice, you could list it just once in ${version} and compute it for ${base_version}, like this:
version 1.1.21 set base_version [lindex [split ${version} -] 0]
True, one can normalize things to no end. They're also harder to read for those that 1) don't keep up with Portfile syntax as much or 2) don't speak tcl.
Also, when you increase the port's version, don't forget to drop the revision down to 0 (or remove the revision line entirely which does the same thing).
Whup, I did forget to drop the revision :( -eric
On Jan 8, 2008, at 19:52, Eric Hall wrote:
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 04:15:22PM -0600, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Jan 8, 2008, at 15:51, ricci@macports.org wrote:
Modified: trunk/dports/print/libpaper/Portfile =================================================================== --- trunk/dports/print/libpaper/Portfile 2008-01-08 21:48:43 UTC (rev 32595) +++ trunk/dports/print/libpaper/Portfile 2008-01-08 21:51:10 UTC (rev 32596) @@ -2,8 +2,8 @@
PortSystem 1.0 name libpaper -version 1.1.14-3 -set base_version 1.1.14 +version 1.1.21 +set base_version 1.1.21 revision 1
FYI: Instead of listing the version number twice, you could list it just once in ${version} and compute it for ${base_version}, like this:
version 1.1.21 set base_version [lindex [split ${version} -] 0]
True, one can normalize things to no end. They're also harder to read for those that 1) don't keep up with Portfile syntax as much or 2) don't speak tcl.
I don't speak tcl either. I'm just picking things up as I go along. I only wanted to make sure ricci was aware of the option. Having the port's version in more than one place in the portfile makes it more work to update it. I wanted to give him an option to simplify the update process. Having the port's version in only one place is the "correct" way to do things from a programming perspective (the desire to avoid duplication of code, etc.). It's not normalization to no end. It's normalization to the specific end of defining the version only once in the portfile.
Also, when you increase the port's version, don't forget to drop the revision down to 0 (or remove the revision line entirely which does the same thing).
Whup, I did forget to drop the revision :(
participants (2)
-
Eric Hall
-
Ryan Schmidt