Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 09:22:41 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Ruslan Mahmatkhanov <cvs-src@yandex.ru> Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, Mark Linimon <linimon@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/devel Makefile Message-ID: <20111226092241.GA1595@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4EF833E6.8090406@yandex.ru> References: <201112252311.pBPNBnQQ074641@repoman.freebsd.org> <4EF822D5.3080009@yandex.ru> <20111226083316.GB68567@FreeBSD.org> <4EF833E6.8090406@yandex.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 12:44:22PM +0400, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote: > Alexey Dokuchaev wrote on 26.12.2011 12:33: > > It always surprised me how could people come up with dot-containing port > > names in the first place... Not to mention that this `.core' issue had > > bitten us already in the past. > > Alexey, this naming was discussed [1] _before_ i ever starting to add > all this ports and there was no strong objections (and this is not > prohibited anywhere in Porters Handbook, Committers Guide etc) about > this. The point is to name it as close as upstream do - the same policy > apply to p5 ports, so why there should be exception for py- ports? Ruslan, I perfectly understand that this naming does not contradict some letter of PH or CG. I was just making an observation that dot is a poorly chosen symbol for this purpose. This conflict due to ".core" being magic extension does not look unexpected at all -- these things are very likely to happen when a port's compound name uses symbols other than [_-] as separators. I also respect and appreciate your asking on the ports@, yet I feel sorry that you've picked up `py-zope.foobar' instead of `py-zope-foobar'. While mimicking upstream name is a nice thing to pursue, maintaining consistency within our own Ports Collection is IMHO more important. Given that we have to rename .core -> -core for at least two ports already, we've broken both upstream ill-designed scheme, and consistency with other py-zope ports. In this light, sticking with dash from the very beginning would be a win for everyone (including our user). > [1] > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2011-September/069877.html Sorry I have missed this discussion. Doug had perfectly valid reasoning. I fully support his assessment that while we already have plenty of portnames with dot in them, it's not a good reason to add more. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111226092241.GA1595>