Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:31:30 +0300 From: Vitaly Magerya <vmagerya@gmail.com> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> Subject: Re: ports need a uniq identifier, do you have any suggestion? Message-ID: <4FD5E522.4020506@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120611073017.GT60433@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> References: <20120611043001.GO60433@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <CAF6rxg=Z5C=_JZ6B9vut-g9mdDq8c6AN_e1TaPAyEFQYkjBBvA@mail.gmail.com> <20120611073017.GT60433@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>> Perhaps we could introduce UNIQUE_ORIGIN which is
>> ${ORIGIN}_${SUBPACKAGE} or something of the sort?
>
> I thought about this one, but while here we should think about package move
> which keeps being the same package, in that case origin will change, and the
> uniquename will change which is no good for binary world.
Does pkgng handle MOVED during upgrades? If so, ${ORIGIN}_${SUBPACKAGE}
will work fine, if not -- then it should; relying on unique name not to
change is fragile.
For example when audio/polypaudio was renamed to audio/pulseaudio, it
would be unreasonable to keep it's unique name as "polyaudio".
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FD5E522.4020506>