net/intel-{ix,em}-kmod: freeze PORTREVISION and PORTEPOCH

[skozlov]

Summary

PORTREVISION wasn't specified in net/intel-{ix,em}-kmod, which are
slave ports of net/intel-ixl-kmod. Because of that when PORTREVISION
was bumped in intel-ixl-kmod - it automatically appeared in the slave
ports, which shouldn't happen.

To avoid this in the future - explicitly specify PORTREVISION and
PORTEPOCH in the slave ports.

Test Plan

Sanity and compile tested using poudriere w/portlint.

intel-em-kmod.log95 KBDownload

intel-ix-kmod.log102 KBDownload

[franco_opnsense.org]

@skozlov feel free to take maintainership of net/intel-em-kmod and thanks for working on these modules! :)

[skozlov]

In D17646#376890, @franco_opnsense.org wrote:

@skozlov feel free to take maintainership of net/intel-em-kmod and thanks for working on these modules! :)

Thank you. Will do in another commit.

[linimon]

I'm not sure that PORTEPOCH can start with zero.

[skozlov]

In D17646#379198, @linimon wrote:

I'm not sure that PORTEPOCH can start with zero.

This can be done. From Porter's Handbook:

... If PORTEPOCH is nonzero it is appended to the package name ...

Also, portlint doesn't give any warnings, and poudriere builds w/o errors