Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 18:10:05 -0700 From: Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org> To: Jun Kuriyama <kuriyama@imgsrc.co.jp> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Projects with multiple versions in our ports tree Message-ID: <D77E3746-EE57-11D8-AF44-000A956B6386@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <7mbrhffqyn.wl@black.imgsrc.co.jp> References: <20040811172245.I54010@ync.qbhto.arg> <7mbrhffqyn.wl@black.imgsrc.co.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Aug 13, 2004, at 00:16, Jun Kuriyama wrote: > I'm using "foo" port as mainstream version and "fooXX" port as forked > / obsoleted versions (and I think this tradition is still alive, isn't > it?) This only works when there is an identifiable "mainstream" version. Since the autotools stuff was mentioned, pretty much all of them can be considered "mainstream" given the massive incompatibilities between versions (yes, I'd love to have just libtool,autoconf and automake, but it just ain't going to happen). One thing that slightly bugs me are ports that effectively include the version number twice, for example: cd /usr/ports/dns/bind9 && make -V PKGNAME bind9-9.2.3 To my mind, that should really read bind-9.2.3, with appropriate LATEST_LINK magic. I think that would go some of the way to help reduce confusion. I'm really not keen on the idea of having a "foo" port as a subport of "foo<num>", since if things start depending on "foo" as opposed to "foo<num>", then we have the nastiness associated when foo is changed to point to a new "foo<newnum>" port. Of course, this is something of an "emotional" issue, as is anything to do with port-naming (just like machine-naming, everyone has their own opinion on how it should look :), but I truly believe that a good first step would be to eliminate the "double-versioning" in some ports (bind is merely an example, there are plenty of others). -aDe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D77E3746-EE57-11D8-AF44-000A956B6386>