Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 09:41:54 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> To: Yuri <yuri@freebsd.org> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r502676 - in head/science: . opensph opensph/files Message-ID: <20190527094154.GA43150@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <225414dd-4a41-9645-5004-937419175b66@freebsd.org> References: <201905260408.x4Q489Sj016376@repo.freebsd.org> <20190526085728.GA35964@FreeBSD.org> <ca65087e-b8e0-aa02-5c0f-a834d665fd65@freebsd.org> <20190527091902.GA21784@FreeBSD.org> <225414dd-4a41-9645-5004-937419175b66@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 02:32:25AM -0700, Yuri wrote: > On 2019-05-27 02:19, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > There is a consensus WRT PORTNAMEs as well, I'm sure you can easily > > notice it and obtain numbers with a simple shell script. That said, > > please, do not use mixed cased PORTNAMEs, "distinctive and diverse > > shape" does not help it here but only creates needless inconsistency > > and confusion. > > This is easy: if you want this rule you should create a patch for the > PHB with this rule. I don't want to create or enforce rules, sometimes it's OK and actually better to bend them, but it takes certain care and taste to known when they can be bent. This is not the right time. I'm just asking you to realize, particularly in this case, that your naming is very inconsistent with all the other OpenFOO ports we have in the ports tree. There are no reasons how could this be any better than to follow existing, clearly visible, and universally adhered practice. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20190527094154.GA43150>