Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 22:10:52 +0000 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports with same name Message-ID: <20100309221052.498bb495@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <20100309202400.65ca1e86@ernst.jennejohn.org> References: <47B3280E-2609-476D-92EA-BC940C8C49D3@freebsd.org> <20100309192514.49a88a53@ernst.jennejohn.org> <20100309190124.GA48403@comcast.net> <20100309202400.65ca1e86@ernst.jennejohn.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 20:24:00 +0100 Gary Jennejohn <gary.jennejohn@freenet.de> wrote: > On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 11:01:24 -0800 > Charlie Kester <corky1951@comcast.net> wrote: > > > On Tue 09 Mar 2010 at 10:25:14 PST Gary Jennejohn wrote: > > >On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 10:23:51 -0500 > > >Steven Kreuzer <skreuzer@freebsd.org> wrote: > > >So where's the problem? sysutils/gag doesn't seem to install a > > >binary which would conflict with security/gag. In fact, it > > >doesn't seem to install an executable at all, based on examining > > >the Makefile and pkg-plist. > > > > Could be a problem for tools like portmaster that allow the user to > > specify the port name only, rather than category/portname. > > > > If a user has both gags installed and then runs "portmaster gag", > > how should portmaster resolve the ambiguity? > > > > By examining the ORIGIN tags in +CONTENTS and asking the user which > one to update? > > IMO this is a putative problem which shouldn't be "fixed" by renaming > a port. But I'm just a lowly ports committer and not a member of > portmgr. They also both have the "UNIQUENAME" of gag, so if they had options they would be stored in the same directory, I suspect there are potential problems with package names too. Whether or not any of this actually causes a problem with gag, it seems to me to be better to avoid creating a precedent.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100309221052.498bb495>