Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 15:59:14 -0600 From: Jason Bacon <jwbacon@tds.net> To: Michael Gmelin <grembo@freebsd.org>, "marino@freebsd.org" <marino@freebsd.org> Cc: "svn-ports-head@freebsd.org" <svn-ports-head@freebsd.org>, =?UTF-8?B?RGFnLUVybGluZyBTbcO4cmdyYXY=?= <des@des.no>, "svn-ports-all@freebsd.org" <svn-ports-all@freebsd.org>, "ports-committers@freebsd.org" <ports-committers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r370220 - in head/biology: . ncbi-blast Message-ID: <54A07D32.6010401@tds.net> In-Reply-To: <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> <0E188BDF-EBCD-4849-B329-C7109A52BD33@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/28/14 2:08 PM, Michael Gmelin wrote:
>
>
>> On 28 Dec 2014, at 20:48, John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
> Just to add my 2 cents:
>
> I don't really follow the argument of bumping portepoch (it's not a very explicit way of stating that this is not the original version - IMHO it's actually not what portepoch is about).
>
> Based on the arguments I've seen I think renaming the port to ncbi-blast-plus is the best solution - also for future users of the port.
>
> - Michael
Feel free if you want to rename it. I considered adding '+' to the name
when I created the port, but decided it was redundant since this is the
only BLAST* implementation under development by NCBI. Given that the
legacy NCBI blast is available as biology/ncbi-toolkit, the new NCBI
BLAST+ port is uniquely identified by either ncbi-blast or ncbi-blast-plus.
I would argue that all BLAST* ports should be prefixed to indicate the
specific implementation, e.g. ncbi-blast, wu-blast, etc.
JB
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jason W. Bacon
jwbacon@tds.net
Circumstances don't make a man:
They reveal him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54A07D32.6010401>