Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 22:17:54 +0200 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@FreeBSD.org> To: gary.jennejohn@freenet.de Cc: Charlie Kester <corky1951@comcast.net>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports with same name Message-ID: <20100309221754.7a418cd4@it.buh.tecnik93.com> In-Reply-To: <20100309202400.65ca1e86@ernst.jennejohn.org> References: <47B3280E-2609-476D-92EA-BC940C8C49D3@freebsd.org> <20100309192514.49a88a53@ernst.jennejohn.org> <20100309190124.GA48403@comcast.net> <20100309202400.65ca1e86@ernst.jennejohn.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Sig_/eG=f9pRGa_rdZlfZcsW._g9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 20:24:00 +0100 Gary Jennejohn <gary.jennejohn@freenet.de> wrote: > On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 11:01:24 -0800 > Charlie Kester <corky1951@comcast.net> wrote: >=20 > > On Tue 09 Mar 2010 at 10:25:14 PST Gary Jennejohn wrote: > > >On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 10:23:51 -0500 > > >Steven Kreuzer <skreuzer@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > > >> Hello- > > >> > > >> As documented in > > >> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=3Dports/144277 we have > > >> two ports with the same name: > > >> > > >> Port: gag-2.9 > > >> Path: /usr/ports/security/gag > > >> Info: A stacheldraht (DOS attack) agent detector > > >> Maint: ports@FreeBSD.org > > >> B-deps:=09 > > >> R-deps:=09 > > >> WWW: http://www.washington.edu/People/dad/ > > >> > > >> Port: gag-4.9 > > >> Path: /usr/ports/sysutils/gag > > >> Info: Graphical Boot Manager > > >> Maint: alepulver@FreeBSD.org > > >> B-deps:=09 > > >> R-deps:=09 > > >> WWW: http://gag.sourceforge.net/ > > >> > > >> I am looking for some advice on whats the best course of action > > >> to deal with this. > > >> > > >> My gut feeling is that sysutils/gag should remain the same and > > >> that security/gag should be renamed to security/gag-stacheldraht. > > >> > > >> Anyone vehemently opposed to this? > > >> > > > > > >So where's the problem? sysutils/gag doesn't seem to install a > > >binary which would conflict with security/gag. In fact, it > > >doesn't seem to install an executable at all, based on examining > > >the Makefile and pkg-plist. > >=20 > > Could be a problem for tools like portmaster that allow the user to > > specify the port name only, rather than category/portname. =20 > >=20 > > If a user has both gags installed and then runs "portmaster gag", > > how should portmaster resolve the ambiguity? > >=20 >=20 > By examining the ORIGIN tags in +CONTENTS and asking the user which > one to update? >=20 > IMO this is a putative problem which shouldn't be "fixed" by renaming > a port. But I'm just a lowly ports committer and not a member of > portmgr. We ain't Gods either, y'know ;) --=20 IOnut - Un^d^dregistered ;) FreeBSD "user" "Intellectual Property" is nowhere near as valuable as "Intellect" FreeBSD committer -> itetcu@FreeBSD.org, PGP Key ID 057E9F8B493A297B --Sig_/eG=f9pRGa_rdZlfZcsW._g9 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkuWrPIACgkQJ7GIuiH/oeVl+wCgrIwTzXD+/k8+EW6sBwD/dHkC 6o8AoJqwfXzvJb8mWXB7W8ej0THo5Vw8 =J/cq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/eG=f9pRGa_rdZlfZcsW._g9--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100309221754.7a418cd4>