Naming convention for pre-release versions

[Daniel J. Luke]

On Oct 5, 2006, at 11:08 AM, Michel Salim wrote:
> Is there a convention for naming such pre-release versions? I'm
> thinking of the Fedora Extras-esque '3.97-0.beta2', where the
> alpha/beta release gets encoded in the revision field, and always
> preceded by a '0'. The final version can then be revision 1, and
> everyone's happy.

I think the general tradition here is to just use the upstream's  
version numbering and bump the epoch in the portfile when necessary.

--
Daniel J. Luke
+========================================================+
| *---------------- dluke at geeklair.net ----------------* |
| *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* |
+========================================================+
|   Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily   |
|          reflect the opinions of my employer.          |
+========================================================+


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20061005/d2f74ee1/PGP.bin