Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 01:59:52 +0300 From: Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: emulation@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [patch] bsd.linux-rpm.mk: PKGNAMEPREFIX for FC6 ports Message-ID: <01060071@bsam.ru> In-Reply-To: <20070324230735.mniaxvuq044o0sog@webmail.leidinger.net> (Alexander Leidinger's message of "Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:07:35 %2B0100") References: <11780964@bsam.ru> <20070324230735.mniaxvuq044o0sog@webmail.leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:07:35 +0100 Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> (from Sat, 24 Mar 2007 20:14:35 +0300): > > For upcoming FC6 ports I propose to use PKGNAMEPREFIX=linux-fc6- > Would it make sense to do this for all fedora based ports, even for > fc4 (I talk about linux-fc4 obviously)? When we were changing default linux_base (at least the last time) we had changed all infrostructure ports as well at once. There had been no need to create other ports. With linux_base-fc6 introduction it should be another play: both linux_base ports will coexist for a long time (along with their infrostructure ports). About fc4 ports. Have to think a little... > Do we gain something from this? Maybe some consistence for the future? Yes, it seems to me a bad idea to have two packages with the same name but for different linux_base ports. And for sure a consistence play a good role here. > Maybe we need to ask portmgr what impact such a generic change would > have for the packages/PORTREVISION/... Well, it may be a good idea. Thanks for the feedback. WBR -- Boris Samorodov (bsam) Research Engineer, http://www.ipt.ru Telephone & Internet SP FreeBSD committer, http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?01060071>