Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2023 16:22:11 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 273053] www/rustypaste: Update to 0.12.1 Message-ID: <bug-273053-7788-3wSfwwBUBi@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-273053-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-273053-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D273053 Fernando Apestegu=C3=ADa <fernape@FreeBSD.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|In Progress |Open Assignee|fernape@FreeBSD.org |ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org --- Comment #7 from Fernando Apestegu=C3=ADa <fernape@FreeBSD.org> --- (In reply to Robert Clausecker from comment #5) > I don't see the point quite frankly in bulk search-and-replace of the po= rtname with ${PORTNAME}. There wasn't such search-and-replace. AFAICT, this was done directly when creating the port in 31484c7300b6d. > E.g. a github repository doesn't care about what we call the port of the = project hosted there. There is no reason why its name should be derived fr= om the port name. Of course a GitHub project doesn't care. We create ports out of GitHub's repositories and not the other way around. I don't really understand what y= our point is here. You are stating something that is already true in the ports tree. If we rename this port to "foo", then PORTNAME=3Dfoo and we can do WHATEVER=3Drustypaste so we again, avoid to type "rustypaste" 11 times in t= he Makefile. Get it right once, and you're done. Using PORTNAME in this case i= s a matter of convenience, nothing to do with coupling. >If you have trouble spelling the project name, that's an issue that should= be solved by means other than coupling identifiers that are only related b= y convention (i.e. that we name the port usually the same as the upstream p= roject) and not because they need to be the same. They don't need to be the same. But we try to follow POLA. Meaning it would= be really confusing to create a port out of a project called upstream "shelloxidizer" (I'm making this up) and naming it "foobar" in the ports tr= ee. I think it's a good practice, but at no point it *needs* to be the same, nor the use of PORTNAME forces us to do that. Honestly I don't know what kind of improvement we're trying to achieve here. I saw you already started changing ports this way, so I'm not opposing, but= I will not commit this since I don't agree with the changes. I haven't been provided with any compelling evidence as to why this is a good thing. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-273053-7788-3wSfwwBUBi>