# Makefile portepoch/portrevision question.



## Voltar (Nov 29, 2009)

So with a little help I finally got my issue in this thread solved, and since there wasn't a maintainer for that port, I figured I would submit an update and see what happens.

Which has lead me to this question. 

The Makefile for the port has PORTEPOCH defined. From what I've read in the porter's handbook, since that is already defined, it shouldn't ever be removed/lowered. Given that this is a minor fix/update to the port, I was thinking a small bump in PORTREVISION would have sufficed, but PORTREVISION was never defined.

So my question is, should I define PORTREVISION in and not even touch PORTEPOCH? Or just bump PORTEPOCH? I don't want to cause problems with the updating of the port in the future, so figured it would be best to get some insight on this.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Nov 29, 2009)

I'm sure most ports don't have a PORTREVISION defined, which doesn't mean you can't define it yourself. So I guess all you have to do is change


```
PORTNAME=       libutf-8
PORTVERSION=    1.0
```
to

```
PORTNAME=       libutf-8
PORTVERSION=    1.0
PORTREVISION=   1
```

This should bump up the version from 1.0 to 1.0_1.

I'm not a porter myself, but this is what I understand from the Porter's Handbook. You should leave PORTEPOCH alone, because that's only used to circumvent 'backwards versioning' like 0.1 -> 0.11 -> 0.2.


----------



## Voltar (Nov 29, 2009)

Thanks, that's kinda what I thought, but the PORTEPOCH threw me off. Since it can't be removed without a bit of effort/grief (from what I've read), I figured it would be best to leave it for now. 

I have this:

```
PORTNAME=       libutf-8
PORTVERSION=    1.0
PORTREVISION=   1
PORTEPOCH=      1
```
Which would give me libutf-8-1.0_1,1 (kinda ugly, but I've seen it before).


----------



## DutchDaemon (Nov 29, 2009)

Maybe there was a weird version once, something like libutf-8-19990909. Removing or lowering the PORTEPOCH would prevent anyone from upgrading for the next 19990908 major versions, so I guess one should leave it alone or wait until the year 2438 (late March, maybe early April, around noon). The ,1 simply means: "this is a higher value than anything without ,1", or something to that effect.


----------



## Voltar (Nov 29, 2009)

DutchDaemon said:
			
		

> ...so I guess one should leave it alone or wait until the year 2438 (late March, maybe early April, around noon).



Heh, nice one :e

Thanks for the help, tested it and submitted the pr. Hopefully I didn't miss anything.


----------



## avilla@ (Nov 29, 2009)

DutchDaemon said:
			
		

> I'm not a porter myself, but this is what I understand from the Porter's Handbook. You should leave PORTEPOCH alone, because that's only used to circumvent 'backwards versioning' like 0.1 -> 0.11 -> 0.2.



absolutely correct


----------

