From owner-svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 28 20:06:53 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6952EFC6 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 20:06:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.grem.de (outcast.grem.de [213.239.217.27]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AAB3A64C59 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 20:06:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 21634 invoked by uid 89); 28 Dec 2014 20:06:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.250.192?) (mg@grem.de@88.217.180.55) by mail.grem.de with ESMTPA; 28 Dec 2014 20:06:43 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Subject: Re: svn commit: r370220 - in head/biology: . ncbi-blast From: Michael Gmelin X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12B440) In-Reply-To: <54A05E8E.20802@marino.st> Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 21:08:01 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0E188BDF-EBCD-4849-B329-C7109A52BD33@freebsd.org> 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> <54A05E8E.20802@marino.st> To: "marino@freebsd.org" Cc: "svn-ports-head@freebsd.org" , =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= , "svn-ports-all@freebsd.org" , "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 20:06:53 -0000 > On 28 Dec 2014, at 20:48, John Marino wrote: >=20 >> On 12/28/2014 20:43, Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav wrote: >> John Marino writes: >>> Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav 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. >>=20 >> 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 Just to add my 2 cents: I don't really follow the argument of bumping portepoch (it's not a very exp= licit way of stating that this is not the original version - IMHO it's actua= lly not what portepoch is about). Based on the arguments I've seen I think renaming the port to ncbi-blast-plu= s is the best solution - also for future users of the port. - Michael=20=