From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 10 03:54:01 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E87D37B401 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 03:54:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.fillmore-labs.com (lima.fillmore-labs.com [62.138.193.83]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDD8F43FAF for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 03:54:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com) Received: from atlantis.wireless.fillmore-labs.com ([192.168.161.242] helo=fillmore-labs.com) by mx2.fillmore-labs.com with asmtp (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.20) id 19aZ3n-000NID-PT; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:53:59 +0200 Message-ID: <3F0D45C1.40803@fillmore-labs.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:53:53 +0200 From: Oliver Eikemeier MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-Sender: eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com User-Agent: KMail/1.5.9 Organization: Fillmore Labs GmbH X-Complaints-To: abuse@fillmore-labs.com cc: Christian Kratzer Subject: versioned ports naming convention X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:54:01 -0000 Hi all, just a quick question: When there are multiple versioned ports (like www/apache13 and www/apache2) PORTNAME shouldn't be versioned (i.e. apache), that's how I understand the FreeBSD Porter's Handbook, 4.2.4 Package Naming Conventions: Examples are: mail/cyrus-imapd, mail/cyrus-imapd2 and mail/cyrus-imapd22 security/cyrus-sasl and security/cyrus-sasl2 mail/exim-old, mail/exim devel/autoconf, devel/autoconf213, devel/autoconf253, devel/autoconf257 devel/automake, devel/automake14, devel/automake15, devel/automake17 Now Christian Kratzer told me that this policy is about to change: Did I misinterpret the porter's handbook or do I overlook the advantages of having versioned PORTNAMEs? Thanks for your insight Oliver