From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 6 07:19:09 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75D7C106564A; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 07:19:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cvs-src@yandex.ru) Received: from forward15.mail.yandex.net (forward15.mail.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:0:801::5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E60A78FC18; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 07:19:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp14.mail.yandex.net (smtp14.mail.yandex.net [95.108.131.192]) by forward15.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id 59E6A9E115C; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:19:07 +0400 (MSD) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex.ru; s=mail; t=1315293547; bh=noA/AWkK6BnRs5kGd5HnjzENG+SJWpM+ja6dM9BwCm4=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=XYqEP+2TrS7CvUOZM/FgNsreMn/Pc9eMMkpsaGF6/W1s3DL3Q/5K0QRVUUpabj+hK ABEZjvA+ST8rBVL/OfaT/O+MRxqpDmsWK+cstAOd+Vp2YQzvLcdk6IEF7VfJlOFq4X Sthit0U3u/b6jRvUSc5Sj5T0YUPR6tQFWp4YzOkI= Received: from smtp14.mail.yandex.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp14.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id 275921B603E4; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:19:07 +0400 (MSD) Received: from unknown (unknown [213.27.65.65]) by smtp14.mail.yandex.net (nwsmtp/Yandex) with ESMTP id J6UaVjUm; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:19:06 +0400 X-Yandex-Spam: 1 Message-ID: <4E65C964.7070503@yandex.ru> Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 11:19:00 +0400 From: Ruslan Mahmatkhanov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD i386; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110828 Thunderbird/6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Barton References: <4E64C077.8050403@yandex.ru> <4E656B6E.5080105@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4E656B6E.5080105@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: FreeBSD Ports Mailing List , Mark Linimon , wen heping Subject: Re: Maintainership of py-zopetesting and py-zopeevent X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 07:19:09 -0000 Doug Barton wrote on 06.09.2011 04:38: > On 09/05/2011 16:35, wen heping wrote: >> Would you send a PR of repocopy to rename these ports? > > My understanding is that we don't do port names with . in them. Can > someone who knows more than I confirm one way or the other? Doug, Mark, here is my point why there is nothing actually criminal: a) porters handbook doesn't discourages dot usage in port names (but it suggest to use PREFIX and POSTFIX for the cases where port name contains `-` in it). b) we already have plenty of portnames with dot in them: [rm@smeshariki3 www]> find /usr/ports -type d -depth 2 -name "*.*" -print | wc -l 105 c) it's not convenient to maintain ports with some (compeletely unnecessary) parts of them tweaked. as for now, DISTNAME, PYDISTUTILS_PKGNAME should be changed to avoid the dots and to make this ports actually work. Please see this list: http://pypi.python.org/pypi?%3Aaction=search&term=zope&submit=search It's a lot of work to change some Makefile parts for all of them if we ever decide to port them all. d) while working on that, i erroneously ported already existing deps just because i wasn't able to find it, and this is something terrible that i really angry of. How would one decide which deps is needed to one port or another? He will consult the port docs, offsite requirements, may be check the code itself. So, for example, i want to port some code that depends on "zope.proxy" (just that, as it may be founded in distribution's setup.py and all the docs), so what should i (the user) do? `make search name=zope.proxy`. Oh, nothing there, so it seems i should port it too (OR - so it seems we lacking some dependency so i'm lazy to go with it and port it too). How could i know that somebody decides to name it "zopeproxy" just to avoid some dots in the name? I think that principle of least surprise should be there for such cases, otherwise user just can't find the port that they need. I believe that all of this is reasonable enough to pass some new dots to the tree, isn't it? -- Regards, Ruslan Tinderboxing kills... the drives.