Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 17:15:08 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> To: Mel Flynn <rflynn@acsalaska.net> Cc: Chris Rees <crees@freebsd.org>, Matthew Seaman <matthew@freebsd.org>, freebsd-ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [CFT] UNIQUENAME patches Message-ID: <20120616151508.GM98264@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <20120616151125.GL98264@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> References: <4FD8AFEC.6070605@FreeBSD.org> <CADLo83-Pr5Qqa6oUFKmfbLuuDOCiDQoiLVvjPfvJ1fT8ou0h9g@mail.gmail.com> <4FDC9488.2010509@FreeBSD.org> <20120616145341.GK98264@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <4FDCA0FC.3050407@acsalaska.net> <20120616151125.GL98264@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--DheUW4aQn8WJk6WR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 05:11:25PM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 05:06:36PM +0200, Mel Flynn wrote:
> > 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, ca=
n't
> > >>> we just add the category to it?
> > >>>
> > >>> .for cat in ${CATEGORIES}
> > >>> UNIQUEPREFIX?=3D ${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 f=
or
> > >> 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 por=
ts
> > >> 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
> > >>
> > >> --=20
> > >> Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.
> > >> PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >=20
> > > I'm strongly against adding something related to the category automat=
ically.
> > > 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 f=
rom a
> > > category to another. Currently in pkgng a package is identified by it=
s origin
> > > and thus can't survive automatically from a move, because origin chan=
ges.
> >=20
> > 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.
> >=20
> > <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2008-December/187=
796.html>
> >=20
> >=20
> > --=20
> > Mel
>=20
> Before saying that you should have a look at what pkgng is. pkgng doesn't=
give a
> shit about index. and changing the INDEX won't solve that if you have no =
way
> unique way to identify a package you are doomed, have a look at every sin=
gle
> package management system in the world, all of the sane one with real bin=
ary
> management system have a unique way to identify packages. We don't !
>=20
> Bapt
Forgot to say that origin is a good way to identify a package until we will=
have
sub packages (which we really need)
sub package will mean N packages will have the same origin. that way origin=
will
not become unique anymore.
regards,
Bapt
--DheUW4aQn8WJk6WR
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)
iEYEARECAAYFAk/covwACgkQ8kTtMUmk6EyJvwCggEjVZQtCCRVXHRDtK1O9KniU
YM4AnRwSozyS4Kpxeq8IJiJoi9iPPV5w
=w2A0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--DheUW4aQn8WJk6WR--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120616151508.GM98264>