On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 05:06:36PM +0200, Mel Flynn wrote:
> On 16-6-2012 16:53, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 03:13:28PM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> >> On 16/06/2012 14:18, Chris Rees wrote:
> >>> That's great-- though rather than patching colliding-only ports, can't
> >>> we just add the category to it?
> >>>
> >>> .for cat in ${CATEGORIES}
> >>> UNIQUEPREFIX?= ${cat}
> >>> .endfor
> >>>
> >>> (copying the code from PKGCATEGORY; might be better off moving the
> >>> PKGCATEGORY code up higher and just using that).
> >>
> >> Yes. I thought long and hard about doing that, but I opted not to for
> >> two reasons:
> >>
> >> 1) Using the port name + a uniqueprefix where necessary produces what
> >> is close to the minimal change required to give every port a
> >> unique name. The UNIQUENAME won't actually change for quite a
> >> lot of ports under my scheme.
> >>
> >> 2) As a way of future-proofing against reorganizations of the ports
> >> tree. What tends to happen is that a new category is invented
> >> and a number of ports are moved into it. My way should avoid
> >> changing the UNIQUENAME in the majority of cases.
> >>
> >> Remember that changing the UNIQUENAME changes where the record of the
> >> port options are stored, and either we annoy a lot of users by making
> >> them fill in a buch of dialogues all over again, or we have to invent
> >> some complicated mechanism copy the old options settings to the new
> >> directory. (Yes -- this sort of thing will occur with the changes as
> >> written. It can't be avoided entirely.)
> >>
> >> Plus I think it would be more natural and easier for maintainers and
> >> end-users to talk about (say) "phpmyadmin" rather than
> >> "databases-phpmyadmin."
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Matthew
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.
> >> PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I'm strongly against adding something related to the category automatically.
> > Because I'm thinking about binary managerment, adding PKGCATEGORY to
> > uniquename
> > would mean a package tracking will be lots in case of moving a port from a
> > category to another. Currently in pkgng a package is identified by its
> > origin
> > and thus can't survive automatically from a move, because origin changes.
>
> You should solve this using a better index format. I figured out years
> ago that the INDEX format used by the ports system is not a good format
> for binary upgrades.
>
> <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2008-December/187796.html>
>
>
> --
> MelBefore saying that you should have a look at what pkgng is. pkgng doesn't give a shit about index. and changing the INDEX won't solve that if you have no way unique way to identify a package you are doomed, have a look at every single package management system in the world, all of the sane one with real binary management system have a unique way to identify packages. We don't ! Bapt
pgpElXyexDmBE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
