Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 17:06:36 +0200 From: Mel Flynn <rflynn@acsalaska.net> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> Cc: Chris Rees <crees@freebsd.org>, Matthew Seaman <matthew@freebsd.org>, freebsd-ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [CFT] UNIQUENAME patches Message-ID: <4FDCA0FC.3050407@acsalaska.net> In-Reply-To: <20120616145341.GK98264@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> References: <4FD8AFEC.6070605@FreeBSD.org> <CADLo83-Pr5Qqa6oUFKmfbLuuDOCiDQoiLVvjPfvJ1fT8ou0h9g@mail.gmail.com> <4FDC9488.2010509@FreeBSD.org> <20120616145341.GK98264@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 16-6-2012 16:53, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> 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?
>>>
>>> .for cat in ${CATEGORIES}
>>> UNIQUEPREFIX?= ${cat}
>>> .endfor
>>>
>>> (copying the code from PKGCATEGORY; might be better off moving the
>>> PKGCATEGORY code up higher and just using that).
>>
>> Yes. I thought long and hard about doing that, but I opted not to for
>> two reasons:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.)
>>
>> Plus I think it would be more natural and easier for maintainers and
>> end-users to talk about (say) "phpmyadmin" rather than
>> "databases-phpmyadmin."
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>> --
>> Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.
>> PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> I'm strongly against adding something related to the category automatically.
> Because I'm thinking about binary managerment, adding PKGCATEGORY to uniquename
> 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 origin
> and thus can't survive automatically from a move, because origin changes.
You should solve this using a better index format. I figured out years
ago that the INDEX format used by the ports system is not a good format
for binary upgrades.
<http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2008-December/187796.html>;
--
Mel
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FDCA0FC.3050407>