Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 19:23:49 +0200 From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> To: Jon Passki <cykyc@yahoo.com> Cc: FreeBSD ports <FreeBSD-ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: FYI: new port security/portaudit-db Message-ID: <6EC78FCA-BD5E-11D8-9250-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <20040613134426.91585.qmail@web50301.mail.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jon Passki wrote: >> Again: >> >> * a port should *not* change its version numbering based on >> included components >> >> * restrain yourself to *one* suffix in the package name (and use >> a dash to seperate it from the main ports name) > > No bikeshed here, just pointing out that if you go this route then > change the porters-handbook. Chapter 5.2.4 allows what you wish to > avoid. <http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters- handbook/makefile-naming.html#PORTING-PKGNAME> 5.2.4 Package Naming Conventions 3. If the port can be built with different _hardcoded defaults_ (usually part of the directory name in a family of ports), the -compiled.specifics part should state the compiled-in defaults (the hyphen is optional). Which I read as `use PKGNAMESUFFIX for slave ports and make it part of the directory name' and `a hyphen is the natural separator'. And no paragraph recommends changing the version number depending on configuration options. In fact it will confuse most package tools, like pkg_version, portupgrade and poraudit. Why do you think the FreeBSD Porter's Handbook encourages these things? -Oliver
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6EC78FCA-BD5E-11D8-9250-00039312D914>