Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 07:36:15 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports need a uniq identifier, do you have any suggestion? Message-ID: <4FD591DF.3060808@infracaninophile.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20120611043001.GO60433@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> References: <20120611043001.GO60433@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enigDF15EC2F119C4E73A739BA2A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 11/06/2012 05:30, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> In the ports tree we lack a unique identifier, while we could live with=
out it
> until now, it is more than needed for 2 upcoming features: pkgng and st=
age
> directory support.
>=20
> unique means something that will always be the same what ever the optio=
ns are
> and what ever the runtime they use are. But also means unique in term o=
f in the
> whole ports no other package will share its identifier.
>=20
> currently the only equivalent of this in the ports tree is the origin o=
f a
> package, which will no more be unique with the upcoming sub package sup=
port
> (coming along with stage directory) aka 1 origin to produce n package.
>=20
> UNIQUENAME and LATEST_LINK fails in that area because they both can cha=
nge
> according to the runtime: py27- for example which will become py30- if =
you
> change the default python.
> LATEST_LINK by default also append the PKGNAMEPREFIX which some ports c=
an be
> really creative with.
>=20
> should we introduce something new, should we fix one of the above? do y=
ou have
> any suggestion?
I was looking at this. You'ld think from the name that UNIQUENAME is
the appropriate variable here. Yet by my calculations there are 1439
ports using non-unique UNIQUENAME variables. Fixing that seems like
common sense to me: why call it unique if it isn't?
UNIQUENAME importance being because the default location for a port's
OPTIONSFILE is derived from it, and non-uniqueness can lead to ports
fighting over control of that file? Which is bad when unintentional,
but can be useful for some related ports to share the same options settin=
gs.
Does pkgng really need LATEST_LINK at all? As far as I recall, that
only exists so that the user can say:
# pkg_add -r firefox
without having to look up the version number of the firefox port. But
pkg(1) pretty much already lets you do that, maybe with the aid of '-x'
or '-X' options. Come the pkgng revolution, LATEST_LINK should be one
of the first against the wall.
I don't see the problem with port prefixes changing UNIQUENAME. Isn't
py27-foo conceptually a different port to py30-foo ? Yes, they are
built from the same port ORIGIN, but you already intend dropping the
one-to-one correspondence between port ORIGINS and packages with the
introduction of sub-ports.
Cheers,
Matthew
--=20
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
JID: matthew@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW
--------------enigDF15EC2F119C4E73A739BA2A
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk/VkeUACgkQ8Mjk52CukIwILgCfVH4X/I10IMvmTmNQVXjW18cP
2lgAoIqsqEf4oEJ0ZtMNA6qHDYkj3r9M
=Xf6T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------enigDF15EC2F119C4E73A739BA2A--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FD591DF.3060808>