From owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 24 23:00:15 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emulation@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 818A716A400 for ; Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:00:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsam@bsam.ru) Received: from mail.kuban.ru (mail.kuban.ru [62.183.66.246]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC11B13C45D for ; Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:00:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsam@bsam.ru) Received: from bsam.ru ([85.172.12.41]) by mail.kuban.ru (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id l2OMxi1c036965; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 03:00:03 +0400 (MSD) Received: from bsam by bsam.ru with local (Exim 4.62 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1HVFDE-0000PG-0n; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 01:59:52 +0300 To: Alexander Leidinger References: <11780964@bsam.ru> <20070324230735.mniaxvuq044o0sog@webmail.leidinger.net> From: Boris Samorodov Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 01:59:52 +0300 In-Reply-To: <20070324230735.mniaxvuq044o0sog@webmail.leidinger.net> (Alexander Leidinger's message of "Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:07:35 +0100") Message-ID: <01060071@bsam.ru> User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: Boris Samorodov Cc: emulation@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [patch] bsd.linux-rpm.mk: PKGNAMEPREFIX for FC6 ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Development of Emulators of other operating systems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:00:15 -0000 On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:07:35 +0100 Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting Boris Samorodov (from Sat, 24 Mar 2007 20:14:35 +0300): > > For upcoming FC6 ports I propose to use PKGNAMEPREFIX=linux-fc6- > Would it make sense to do this for all fedora based ports, even for > fc4 (I talk about linux-fc4 obviously)? When we were changing default linux_base (at least the last time) we had changed all infrostructure ports as well at once. There had been no need to create other ports. With linux_base-fc6 introduction it should be another play: both linux_base ports will coexist for a long time (along with their infrostructure ports). About fc4 ports. Have to think a little... > Do we gain something from this? Maybe some consistence for the future? Yes, it seems to me a bad idea to have two packages with the same name but for different linux_base ports. And for sure a consistence play a good role here. > Maybe we need to ask portmgr what impact such a generic change would > have for the packages/PORTREVISION/... Well, it may be a good idea. Thanks for the feedback. WBR -- Boris Samorodov (bsam) Research Engineer, http://www.ipt.ru Telephone & Internet SP FreeBSD committer, http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve