From owner-svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 28 20:15:54 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 89DF56D4; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 20:15:54 +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 5E3E164DE1; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 20:15:54 +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 B0FEA435C7; Sun, 28 Dec 2014 14:15:42 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <54A064ED.8010904@marino.st> Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 21:15:41 +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: David Naylor Subject: Re: svn commit: r370220 - in head/biology: . ncbi-blast References: <201410062016.s96KGZP8084850@svn.freebsd.org> <86sifzef1i.fsf@nine.des.no> <54A05E8E.20802@marino.st> <1666307.NCDYOHOeBx@dragon.dg> In-Reply-To: <1666307.NCDYOHOeBx@dragon.dg> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, =?UTF-8?B?RGFnLUVybGluZyBTbcO4cmdyYXY=?= , 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 20:15:54 -0000 On 12/28/2014 20:11, David Naylor wrote: > If I may interject. It appears to me that the issue is a new port is using > the name of an old port, thus packages of the old port may conflict with the > new port. It's a brand new port. The name was not re-used. > However, in this case I do not believe it to be the case: > - The old port (biology/blast [1]) has a PKGBASE of wu-plast > - The new port (biology/ncbi-blast [2]) has a PKGBASE of ncbiblast > > Since pkg(8) uses the package name (defined in [3] as PKGBASE, which in turn > is defined at [4] as ) in determining dependencies [5] and, as seen above, > these differ I think it is safe to assume that these are too completely > different ports and will not get accidentally confused as the same port by any > tool, thus PORTEPOCH does not need to be invoked. Yes, you've interpreted the situation correctly. John