From owner-svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Mon Jan 25 12:49:10 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 815D9A452D1; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 12:49:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F0F0784; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 12:49:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st) Received: from [192.168.1.21] (248.Red-83-39-200.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [83.39.200.248]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7623A43B98; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 06:49:07 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: svn commit: r406930 - head/archivers/file-roller To: Alexey Dokuchaev References: <201601221319.u0MDJbbm075196@repo.freebsd.org> <20160125085654.GB95732@FreeBSD.org> <56A5EFD5.8080804@marino.st> <20160125123904.GA96711@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org From: John Marino X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org Message-ID: <56A619BC.7080802@marino.st> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 13:49:00 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160125123904.GA96711@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 12:49:10 -0000 On 1/25/2016 1:39 PM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:50:13AM +0100, John Marino wrote: > > Hmm, but how is the fact that zipinfo is a symlink $LOCALBASE/bin/unzip is > irrelevant? The port wants unzip (not zipinfo), and the granule of change > is a line; regardless of the contents, it's -1 +1. Not really. In my view, what it _wants_ is to register the package. It doesn't matter what causes the register, only that it's registered. I could have just as easily requested a man page and it would still work as intended. Now, for those susceptible to pedantism, I can see how it would seem less correct but the whole "_DEPENDS" scheme is like this. We don't list *every* file a port might depend on, we just pick one. That one file is enough to create the registry. Given that point of view, and given that zipinfo cannot exist without unzip, I see those as equivalent. TLDR; Whatever guarantees the dependency registry is correct enough because the actual file is can never be considered representative of the true requirement. > >> I saw the two as equal and thus "dealer's choice" and I chose the latter. > > Having to add an explanatory comment makes it -1 +n, so the two get a little > less equal once you consider this. ;-) Maybe, but I wanted somebody to pause before changing it in the future. John