From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 31 09:14:33 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB39416A4CE for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 09:14:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from sccmmhc02.asp.att.net (sccmmhc02.asp.att.net [204.127.203.184]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CD2B43D41 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 09:14:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from david.fleck@mchsi.com) Received: from grond (12-216-14-105.client.mchsi.com[12.216.14.105]) by sccmmhc02.asp.att.net (sccmmhc02) with SMTP id <20031231171431mm2009s9lse>; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:14:31 +0000 Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:14:30 -0600 (CST) From: David Fleck Sender: dcf@grond.sourballs.org To: fbsd_user In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20031231105813.S67155@grond.sourballs.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: "freebsd-questions@FreeBSD. ORG" cc: David Fleck cc: Kris Kennaway Subject: RE: ports & package names changing? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:14:33 -0000 On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, fbsd_user wrote: > Yes, but doing it that way as example, entering 'apache' would > download apache13 when I really wanted apache20. That logic does > not follow through, it's only valid for single versions of an > package. Yes, it's true that the 'apache' package gets you 1.3.x, and 'apache2' gets you 2.0.x, and this is not clear from the information listed at http://www.freebsd.org/ports/www.html. Perhaps some information could be added to the apache2 package description so that people know what package name to use for apache vs. apache2. In the majority of cases, there aren't separate ports for different versions of an application, so this problem doesn't exist for them. It seems to me that making selected package descriptions more descriptive would be a whole lot safer than making the changes you suggest. -- David Fleck david.fleck@mchsi.com