Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 16:53:41 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Chris Rees <crees@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-ports <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: [CFT] UNIQUENAME patches Message-ID: <20120616145341.GK98264@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <4FDC9488.2010509@FreeBSD.org> References: <4FD8AFEC.6070605@FreeBSD.org> <CADLo83-Pr5Qqa6oUFKmfbLuuDOCiDQoiLVvjPfvJ1fT8ou0h9g@mail.gmail.com> <4FDC9488.2010509@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nzri8VXeXB/g5ayr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 03:13:28PM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 16/06/2012 14:18, Chris Rees wrote: > > That's great-- though rather than patching colliding-only ports, can't > > we just add the category to it? > >=20 > > .for cat in ${CATEGORIES} > > UNIQUEPREFIX?=3D ${cat} > > .endfor > >=20 > > (copying the code from PKGCATEGORY; might be better off moving the > > PKGCATEGORY code up higher and just using that). >=20 > Yes. I thought long and hard about doing that, but I opted not to for > two reasons: >=20 > 1) Using the port name + a uniqueprefix where necessary produces what > is close to the minimal change required to give every port a > unique name. The UNIQUENAME won't actually change for quite a > lot of ports under my scheme. >=20 > 2) As a way of future-proofing against reorganizations of the ports > tree. What tends to happen is that a new category is invented > and a number of ports are moved into it. My way should avoid > changing the UNIQUENAME in the majority of cases. >=20 > Remember that changing the UNIQUENAME changes where the record of the > port options are stored, and either we annoy a lot of users by making > them fill in a buch of dialogues all over again, or we have to invent > some complicated mechanism copy the old options settings to the new > directory. (Yes -- this sort of thing will occur with the changes as > written. It can't be avoided entirely.) >=20 > Plus I think it would be more natural and easier for maintainers and > end-users to talk about (say) "phpmyadmin" rather than > "databases-phpmyadmin." >=20 > Cheers, >=20 > Matthew >=20 > --=20 > Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. > PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 I'm strongly against adding something related to the category automatically. Because I'm thinking about binary managerment, adding PKGCATEGORY to unique= name would mean a package tracking will be lots in case of moving a port from a category to another. Currently in pkgng a package is identified by its orig= in and thus can't survive automatically from a move, because origin changes. Having a uniquename able to survive from move can help a lot avoiding compl= ex detection of move and keeping tracking easily the package. What could be added is a UNIQUENAMESUFFIX to be able to have a finer grain = name. regards, Bapt --nzri8VXeXB/g5ayr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk/cnfUACgkQ8kTtMUmk6EzFCACfQBZ8swU6enG398wLxj1MylTO dbcAn0kwDPTjPZ+gWQIs2b2Kme1VcxSy =GmKs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nzri8VXeXB/g5ayr--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120616145341.GK98264>