ports/*/jpeg "Thanks a lot guys"

[Freddie Cash]

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Jeremy Messenger <mezz7 at cox.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:36:36 -0500, Erik Trulsson <ertr1013 at student.uu.se>
> wrote:
>
>  On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:12:49PM -0400, Jason J. Hellenthal wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Now that I have finally upgraded my system in full from the last mix-up
>>> with jpeg, You guys have bumped up every PORTREVISION that depends on
>>> jpeg
>>> "Great real great" Now I get to spend another three days fixing up some
>>> more packages and rebuilding about 800+ ports.
>>>
>>> Thanks a whole lot.
>>>
>>
>> Nobody is forcing you to rebuild your ports just because the PORTREVISION
>> was bumped.  If everything works fine for you there is actually no good
>> reason at all to do so.
>>
>
> Yes, but how can you tell if there is newer version? The pkg_version and
> pkgversion don't tell you that it's PORTREVISION or actually newer version.
> What about when we run 'port* -a'? Took about two weeks to get PORTREVISION
> bump isn't right at all.
>

Yes it does.  If the version numbers are the same, but the _X number is
different, then it's a PORTREVISION change only.

2.4.1_1 vs 2.4.1_2 is a port revision bump.

2.4.1_1 vs 2.4.2 is a version change.

X.Y.Z are the PORTVERSION.
_A is the PORTREVISION
,B is the PORTEPOCH

Giving a total version string of X.Y.Z_A,B

-- 
Freddie Cash
fjwcash at gmail.com