Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 01:11:44 +0300 From: Sergei Kolobov <sergei@kolobov.com> To: Trevor Johnson <trevor@jpj.net> Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/45006: name of PORTSCOMMENT is too long Message-ID: <20021109221144.GA13969@globcon.net> In-Reply-To: <20021108201024.M77267-100000@blues.jpj.net> References: <20021107235936.GO80226@globcon.net> <20021108201024.M77267-100000@blues.jpj.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
(Cc'ing to ports@). On 2002-11-08 at 21:28 -0500, Trevor Johnson wrote: > Sergei Kolobov wrote: > > (After all, PORTCOMMENT should contain a *short* one-line description of > > the port). > > The imprecation that it be "short" appears to be your own. At least, it > is not in the Handbook. Yes, that is how *I* understand that, and if the Porter's Handbook does not have an explicit rule about this, it should better get one soon. Perhaps your diff should include it, too? ;-) > I hadn't looked at pkg_info's output with a critical eye before. The > command truncates long comments, but doesn't truncate the package names, > many of which have more than 20 characters: > > XFree86-Server-4.2.1_3 XFree86-4 X server and related programs > XFree86-clients-4.2.1_1 XFree86-4 Client environments > XFree86-font100dpi-4.2.0 XFree86-4 bitmap 100 dpi fonts > XFree86-fontDefaultBitmaps-4.2.0 XFree86-4 default bitmap fonts [snipped] > [...] I would suppose that renaming the packages is probably not in > the cards. I doubt it is feasible at all. > As I've shown limiting the comment to even as little as 60 characters is > not enough. Also there's the possibility that quotes, escape characters, > or a greater amount of whitespace may be desirable. Shortening the name > would leave more space for those uses. Agreed. > > What is more important, PORTCOMMENT variable name is in line with names > > of other variables describing a port - PORTNAME, PORTVERSION, > > PORTREVISION. It is very consistent this way. > > What PORTNAME, PORTVERSION, PORTREVISION and PORTEPOCH have in common is > that they go into PKGNAME. To form it, they are combined with > PKGNAMEPREFIX and PKGNAMESUFFIX. PORTCOMMENT is the only exception to the > rule that variables whose names begin with "PORT" go into PKGNAME. Of > course there are many variables which describe a port but do not begin > with "PORT" or "PKG": CATEGORIES, MAINTAINER, INSTALLS_SHLIB, USE_GMAKE, > DISTFILES, MASTER_SITES, and so on. Good point. I did not think of it that way. You are right. > As I mentioned before, changing the meaning of COMMENT would make us > consistent with NetBSD and OpenBSD. Contributors who work with with the > OpenBSD ports collection or NetBSD pkgsrc would have one less difference > to remember. That is an important issue, too. I also checked both OpenBSD and NetBSD. Even if only for the sake of compatibility with other BSDs, we should probably change the variable name to COMMENT to reduce the gratituos diffs. > > I vote for keeping the current name. I take back my words. I am in favor of your patch now ;) Sergei To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021109221144.GA13969>