On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 07:36:15AM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 11/06/2012 05:30, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > In the ports tree we lack a unique identifier, while we could live without > > it > > until now, it is more than needed for 2 upcoming features: pkgng and stage > > directory support. > > > > unique means something that will always be the same what ever the options > > are > > and what ever the runtime they use are. But also means unique in term of in > > the > > whole ports no other package will share its identifier. > > > > currently the only equivalent of this in the ports tree is the origin of a > > package, which will no more be unique with the upcoming sub package support > > (coming along with stage directory) aka 1 origin to produce n package. > > > > UNIQUENAME and LATEST_LINK fails in that area because they both can change > > 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 can be > > really creative with. > > > > should we introduce something new, should we fix one of the above? do you > > 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 settings.
Well this is the right thing to do but looking at bsd.port.mk and the changes needed I get bored and gave up :( > > Does pkgng really need LATEST_LINK at all? As far as I recall, that > only exists so that the user can say: Well no pkgng doesn't need it at all except for pkg itself for the bootstrap :) > > # 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. Maybe they are different packages, but they have the same options, and from pkgng we should be able to detect it as the same package just a different runtime which is what they are. > > Cheers, > > Matthew > > -- > Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard > Flat 3 > PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate > JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW > > >
pgp7mSItOhMk0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
