Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 11 Jun 2012 12:32:22 +0200
From:      Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>
To:        Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk>
Cc:        ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: ports need a uniq identifier, do you have any suggestion?
Message-ID:  <20120611103221.GU60433@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
In-Reply-To: <4FD591DF.3060808@infracaninophile.co.uk>
References:  <20120611043001.GO60433@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <4FD591DF.3060808@infracaninophile.co.uk>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--ULJ2Z7kCM1hyNsWd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 07:36:15AM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> On 11/06/2012 05:30, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > In the ports tree we lack a unique identifier, while we could live with=
out it
> > until now, it is more than needed for 2 upcoming features: pkgng and st=
age
> > directory support.
> >=20
> > unique means something that will always be the same what ever the optio=
ns are
> > and what ever the runtime they use are. But also means unique in term o=
f in the
> > whole ports no other package will share its identifier.
> >=20
> > currently the only equivalent of this in the ports tree is the origin o=
f a
> > package, which will no more be unique with the upcoming sub package sup=
port
> > (coming along with stage directory) aka 1 origin to produce n package.
> >=20
> > UNIQUENAME and LATEST_LINK fails in that area because they both can cha=
nge
> > according to the runtime: py27- for example which will become py30- if =
you
> > change the default python.
> > LATEST_LINK by default also append the PKGNAMEPREFIX which some ports c=
an be
> > really creative with.
> >=20
> > should we introduce something new, should we fix one of the above? do y=
ou have
> > any suggestion?
>=20
> I was looking at this.  You'ld think from the name that UNIQUENAME is
> the appropriate variable here.  Yet by my calculations there are 1439
> ports using non-unique UNIQUENAME variables.  Fixing that seems like
> common sense to me: why call it unique if it isn't?
>=20
> UNIQUENAME importance being because the default location for a port's
> OPTIONSFILE is derived from it, and non-uniqueness can lead to ports
> fighting over control of that file?  Which is bad when unintentional,
> but can be useful for some related ports to share the same options settin=
gs.

Well this is the right thing to do but looking at bsd.port.mk and the chang=
es
needed I get bored and gave up :(
>=20
> Does pkgng really need LATEST_LINK at all?  As far as I recall, that
> only exists so that the user can say:

Well no pkgng doesn't need it at all except for pkg itself for the bootstra=
p :)
>=20
>     # pkg_add -r firefox
>=20
> without having to look up the version number of the firefox port.  But
> pkg(1) pretty much already lets you do that, maybe with the aid of '-x'
> or '-X' options.  Come the pkgng revolution, LATEST_LINK should be one
> of the first against the wall.
>=20
> I don't see the problem with port prefixes changing UNIQUENAME.  Isn't
> py27-foo conceptually a different port to py30-foo ?  Yes, they are
> built from the same port ORIGIN, but you already intend dropping the
> one-to-one correspondence between port ORIGINS and packages with the
> introduction of sub-ports.

Maybe they are different packages, but they have the same options, and from
pkgng we should be able to detect it as the same package just a different
runtime which is what they are.
>=20
> 	Cheers,
>=20
> 	Matthew
>=20
> --=20
> Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.                   7 Priory Courtyard
>                                                   Flat 3
> PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey     Ramsgate
> JID: matthew@infracaninophile.co.uk               Kent, CT11 9PW
>=20
>=20
>=20



--ULJ2Z7kCM1hyNsWd
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAk/VyTUACgkQ8kTtMUmk6EzhQACfSQ2W9MVYgZ1qzzIgA69i23u5
5eIAnidG4cHg4VaonkRtG7/uMtEIm4NP
=YJ1+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--ULJ2Z7kCM1hyNsWd--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120611103221.GU60433>