Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 20:24:00 +0100 From: Gary Jennejohn <gary.jennejohn@freenet.de> To: Charlie Kester <corky1951@comcast.net> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports with same name Message-ID: <20100309202400.65ca1e86@ernst.jennejohn.org> In-Reply-To: <20100309190124.GA48403@comcast.net> References: <47B3280E-2609-476D-92EA-BC940C8C49D3@freebsd.org> <20100309192514.49a88a53@ernst.jennejohn.org> <20100309190124.GA48403@comcast.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 11:01:24 -0800 Charlie Kester <corky1951@comcast.net> wrote: > On Tue 09 Mar 2010 at 10:25:14 PST Gary Jennejohn wrote: > >On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 10:23:51 -0500 > >Steven Kreuzer <skreuzer@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > >> Hello- > >> > >> As documented in http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/144277 > >> we have two ports with the same name: > >> > >> Port: gag-2.9 > >> Path: /usr/ports/security/gag > >> Info: A stacheldraht (DOS attack) agent detector > >> Maint: ports@FreeBSD.org > >> B-deps: > >> R-deps: > >> WWW: http://www.washington.edu/People/dad/ > >> > >> Port: gag-4.9 > >> Path: /usr/ports/sysutils/gag > >> Info: Graphical Boot Manager > >> Maint: alepulver@FreeBSD.org > >> B-deps: > >> R-deps: > >> WWW: http://gag.sourceforge.net/ > >> > >> I am looking for some advice on whats the best course of action to deal with this. > >> > >> My gut feeling is that sysutils/gag should remain the same and that security/gag should be > >> renamed to security/gag-stacheldraht. > >> > >> Anyone vehemently opposed to this? > >> > > > >So where's the problem? sysutils/gag doesn't seem to install a binary > >which would conflict with security/gag. In fact, it doesn't seem to > >install an executable at all, based on examining the Makefile and > >pkg-plist. > > Could be a problem for tools like portmaster that allow the user to > specify the port name only, rather than category/portname. > > If a user has both gags installed and then runs "portmaster gag", how > should portmaster resolve the ambiguity? > By examining the ORIGIN tags in +CONTENTS and asking the user which one to update? IMO this is a putative problem which shouldn't be "fixed" by renaming a port. But I'm just a lowly ports committer and not a member of portmgr. --- Gary Jennejohn
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100309202400.65ca1e86>