PMS currently says about the PVR variable: "Package version and revision, for example 7.0.174-r0 or 7.0.174-r1." The first example is not right since PVR will be just 7.0.174 if there's no revision.
Created attachment 191552 [details, diff] Patch clarifying the wording for PVR and PF
I seem to recall there being something weird about this historically, but I can't remember what it is. What does Portage stick in PVR if the -r0 is there in the version?
(In reply to comment #2) > I seem to recall there being something weird about this historically, but I > can't remember what it is. What does Portage stick in PVR if the -r0 is there > in the version? Right, looks like Portage behaves a bit strange for explicit -r0: PR PVR PF foo-1.ebuild: r0 1 foo-1 foo-1-r0.ebuild: r0 1 foo-1-r0 I think that PF should be PN-PVR (also ebuild(5) says so), so the choice is if PVR (and PF) should include an explicit -r0 or not.
Ok. Would you like to check the wording (and package manager behaviour, for that matter -- I seem to recall this being one of those things that's changed in the past) for all those P* variables and make sure they're clear on the revision cases, including what to do when there's an explicit -r0?
I've tested with Portage versions 2.0.50 (from 2004!), 2.1.4.5, and 2.2_rc33. Same behaviour in all versions: P PN PV PR PVR PF foo-1.ebuild: foo-1 foo 1 r0 1 foo-1 foo-1-r0.ebuild: foo-1 foo 1 r0 1 foo-1-r0 foo-1-r1.ebuild: foo-1 foo 1 r1 1-r1 foo-1-r1 Wording for variables P, PN, PV and PR is fine and consistent with Portage's behaviour.
Ok, patch applied, thanks.
