Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2019 18:48:55 -0600 From: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> To: Charlie Li <ml+freebsd@vishwin.info> Cc: gnome@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: editors/xed name collision Message-ID: <CAP7rwcizVvVuOrH9N79BFEYu2gH4vrsaf=Az-GS-7gr37N0OUw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6f712817-de41-89a9-3ddb-23aabe470a49@vishwin.info> References: <62836767-e190-20ce-f098-c96b402aa747@vishwin.info> <6f712817-de41-89a9-3ddb-23aabe470a49@vishwin.info>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 6:36 PM Charlie Li via freebsd-ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> wrote: > > Charlie Li wrote: > > The Cinnamon desktop environment now has its own collection of desktop > > applications, X-Apps, basically forked from their GNOME and MATE > > counterparts. The text editor, forked from editors/gedit (and will be > > repocopied from there when committed into our main svn repository), is > > named xed. This clearly collides in name with a completely unrelated > > editors/xed. > > > > In the gnome@ devel repo, I've placed the Cinnamon/X-Apps xed as > > editors/x-ed, with PORTNAME=3Dxed, without adding to INDEX. The existin= g > > editors/xed is not maintained in our ports tree, and it even looks > > abandoned upstream (if an upstream even exists still). What do? > > > Bump thread. > > Since I didn't get any feedback with how to proceed, here is what an > overwrite of editors/xed would look like (barring how git messed up > file/path-level semantics): > > https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-ports-gnome/pull/33/commits/01998e06a5= 7f9a0aa4ed9ab063fc4a77a70ed171 > > This is probably not optimal, which begs the question, is there a better > way of doing this? > > -- > Charlie Li > =E2=80=A6nope, still don't have an exit line. > > (This email address is for mailing list use; replace local-part with > vishwin for off-list communication if possible) Setting PORTNAME=3Dxed undoes any benefit of putting it in editors/x-ed, as the PKGBASE will conflict. I agree that the current editors/xed looks completely abandoned (both upstream and within the ports tree), and I have no objection to replacing it. That said, I think the current port will need to be deleted and the replacement svn add'ed. The port isn't actually being "upgraded" to the new xed, and making the svn history seem that way would serve no benefit. Even though it's likely that nobody is using the current xed, it really should have a deprecation notice (backported to quarterly), even if it's short. # Adam --=20 Adam Weinberger adamw@adamw.org https://www.adamw.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAP7rwcizVvVuOrH9N79BFEYu2gH4vrsaf=Az-GS-7gr37N0OUw>