Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 20:32:07 +0100 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: =?UTF-8?B?RGFnLUVybGluZyBTbcO4cmdyYXY=?= <des@des.no> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, John Marino <marino@FreeBSD.org>, jwbacon@tds.net, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r370220 - in head/biology: . ncbi-blast Message-ID: <54A05AB7.3020200@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <86387zfur3.fsf@nine.des.no> References: <201410062016.s96KGZP8084850@svn.freebsd.org> <86r3vjg054.fsf@nine.des.no> <54A04955.3010601@marino.st> <86387zfur3.fsf@nine.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/28/2014 20:18, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> writes: >> It's a brand new port with a unique name. Why is "bumping PORTEPOCH" >> considered necessary? > > The original BLAST is at 2.2.26, while BLAST+ is at 2.2.30. so what? a PORTEPOCH is matched to a specific package name. the version of the original blast port has nothing to do with the version of new port with a unique pkgname. There is no technical reason to increase a PORTEPOCH of a branch new port where the version has never regressed. >> Why is the existence of this port blocking the introduction of a new >> BLAST port? > > It is not BLAST, but is called blast. that will not block the introduction of a new port, nor will it prevent any port from using the proposed blast port as a dependency. There is no technical block. At best this is misleading, but not a technical problem. > >> It seems that all that is needs is to update the pkg-descr file to >> specify it's the blast+ implementation. > > BLAST and BLAST+ are two different programs. So noting this in pkg-descr and maybe COMMENT should be enough to distinguish to somebody that is looking. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54A05AB7.3020200>