From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org Fri Jul 14 13:33:01 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB4C7DA1FAA for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 13:33:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D582F65E1B for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 13:33:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id v6EDX1qE069222 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 13:33:01 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 220434] [NEW PORT] cad/calculix-cgx: Three-Dimensional Structural Finite Element Program Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 13:33:01 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports & Packages X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s) X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: feature, needs-qa X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: koobs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: pfg@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: maintainer-feedback? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 13:33:02 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D220434 --- Comment #11 from Kubilay Kocak --- (In reply to Pedro F. Giffuni from comment #10) >From what I can see, since calculix-cgx RUN_DEPENDS=3Dccx:cad/calculix-ccx,= all else being equal (which may not be the case), I would do something similar = to what we did with multimedia/x264, splitting it into cli/library components = (the cli depends on the library). See: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/373073 The procedure there was: 1) x264 -> svn cp libx264 (new port) 2) modify x264 to depend on libx264 port 3) make modifications to each to make them 'cli' and 'library' only respectively 4) commit Reasons: - No deprecation/removal/user intervention necessary - History retained for new port ("came from x264") - Single/atomic commit There was however, no renaming of the original port (though after commit it= did much much less). The reason for no rename was users would always only search for x264 (not x264-cli), and less confusing is better. With that, your questions: --------------- Should the original port be moved or copied under each of the new ports? --------------- Depends. moves are related to renames (not a new port), copies are related = to history (for new ports).=20 If a substantial portion of the original port is retained in the new parts, then: (A) If calculix can remain named calculix (even if its still "cgx only" bui= ld specific), then you can do: 1) svn cp calculix calculix-ccx 2) update calculix to depend on calculix-ccx 3) modify calculix-ccx to do only ccx things 4) commit (B) If it should/must be renamed, Id look at: 1) Same as (A) - (commit 1), then 2) svn mv calculix -> calculix-cgx 3) add MOVED entry 4) commit I don't know if in SVN you can copy a source, and also move the source in a single commit. E_NEEDSVNEXPERT. If a substantial portion of the original is *NOT* retained in calculix-ccx: 1) Create a new port (no svn cp, no history) 2) update calculix to depend on calculix-ccx 3) commit Optionally: do B(2)(3)(4) after. (renaming the original port) --------------- Can I just remove the old port or should it be labelled "deprecated"? --------------- In both of the above cases, deprecation isn't necessary, as each option provides for a 'complete replacement' with a clean user upgrade path as a f= irst step. That is, they wont need manual intervention, requiring custom instructions to migrate in /usr/ports/UPDATING. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=