Date: 11 Oct 2000 09:27:09 -0400 From: Nat Lanza <magus@cs.cmu.edu> To: Rasmus Kaj <kaj@raditex.se> Cc: Jeremy Lea <reg@FreeBSD.ORG>, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: adding '-gnome' and '-gtk' to package names Message-ID: <uocd7h7eceq.fsf@hurlame.pdl.cs.cmu.edu> In-Reply-To: Rasmus Kaj's message of "11 Oct 2000 10:41:28 %2B0200" References: <uoc1yxoh817.fsf@hurlame.pdl.cs.cmu.edu> <20001010182014.R30468@shale.csir.co.za> <uoclmvwdu8m.fsf@hurlame.pdl.cs.cmu.edu> <84lmvvvkg7.fsf@frodo.sickla.raditex.se>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rasmus Kaj <kaj@raditex.se> writes: > It would be nice if e.g. pkg_info -I foo would list foo-1.0, > foo-gtk-1.0, and foo-mysql-0.8 (with their comments). And it should > not be _to_ hard (but don't hold your breath waiting for patches from > me) to make pkg_info do just that, especially if we make sure there is > no "other" uses of dashes in package names (as Jeremy Lea said we > should). We wouldn't have to change the naming for that. Hmm. 'pkg_info -I' is a good idea, whether or not package options are stored in the package name. I'll try to get some time to put a patch together before I fly out to Monterey. > When you have a ftp directory of built packages (or a cdrom), you > better have some difference in the filenames if the packages are > different ... Good point. But does the name of the file holding a package need to map exactly to the name of the package? If 'foo-gtk-1.0.tgz' installed package foo-1.0 with the GTK+ extras, I don't think it'd be too bad. --nat -- nat lanza --------------------- research programmer, parallel data lab, cmu scs magus@cs.cmu.edu -------------------------------- http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~magus/ there are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths -- alfred north whitehead To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?uocd7h7eceq.fsf>