Date: Sun, 3 May 2015 12:32:48 +0200 (CEST) From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r384947 - in head/lang: . gcc5-devel Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.20.1505031230360.7255@tuna.site> In-Reply-To: <20150429163651.GK13141@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> References: <201504282340.t3SNebr6093811@svn.freebsd.org> <20150429163651.GK13141@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > You did forget to set a specific suffix, which mean we now have 2 > packages named gcc5 which is a problem for pkg and poudriere, a > package name should remain unique. I am starting to wonder, wouldn't it be better to have PORTNAME reflect the (directory) name of the port instead of being more abstract and general? Even since I changed the lang/gcc* ports to have a PORTNAME of just gcc as opposed to gcc47, gcc48, and so forth, things feel like they have become more fragile (this being one example, https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199406 another). Gerald
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.LSU.2.20.1505031230360.7255>