Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 20:48:30 +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, jwbacon@tds.net, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r370220 - in head/biology: . ncbi-blast Message-ID: <54A05E8E.20802@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <86sifzef1i.fsf@nine.des.no> References: <201410062016.s96KGZP8084850@svn.freebsd.org> <86r3vjg054.fsf@nine.des.no> <54A04955.3010601@marino.st> <86387zfur3.fsf@nine.des.no> <54A05AB7.3020200@marino.st> <86sifzef1i.fsf@nine.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/28/2014 20:43, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> writes: >> Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@des.no> writes: >>> 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. > > Yes, and this name cannot be used for the original BLAST program without > bumping PORTEPOCH. This port should have been named ncbi-blast-plus or > something similar. This is just an opinion. There is no technical basis for bumping PORTEPOCH. To boil this down, you are saying the port has a misleading name and should have been named something else by Jason who submitted the PR to add the port. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54A05E8E.20802>