From owner-svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 28 19:32:36 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5DAEF6D; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 19:32:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A05F646F4; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 19:32:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.113] (c-174-61-88-207.hsd1.fl.comcast.net [174.61.88.207]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57E74435C7; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 13:32:23 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <54A05AB7.3020200@marino.st> Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 20:32:07 +0100 From: John Marino Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?RGFnLUVybGluZyBTbcO4cmdyYXY=?= Subject: Re: svn commit: r370220 - in head/biology: . ncbi-blast References: <201410062016.s96KGZP8084850@svn.freebsd.org> <86r3vjg054.fsf@nine.des.no> <54A04955.3010601@marino.st> <86387zfur3.fsf@nine.des.no> In-Reply-To: <86387zfur3.fsf@nine.des.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, John Marino , jwbacon@tds.net, ports-committers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 19:32:36 -0000 On 12/28/2014 20:18, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > John Marino 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