On Oct 21, 2007, at 04:26, Jochen Küpper wrote:
I want to propose to unify port names on a somewhat more systematic
basis. This is triggered by finding these four graphics library names:
libpng
libmng
jpeg
tiff
I think there should really be libtiff and libjpeg ports!
Maybe. But why do we care?
We don't currently have any good way to rename ports. If we rename
the ports, people who have the ports installed under their old names
will never learn about updates. Or, they'll get the new port
installed as a dependency, and the old one will stay installed until
they notice and manually remove it. Not ideal. I proposed a syntax
for portfiles whereby you could leave a stub tiff and jpeg port and
just indicate that they have been superseded by ports libtiff and
libjpeg but nobody responded to that thread, so we don't have any
feature like that at this time.
I understand that jpeg and tiff install more than libraries, but
nevertheless for most dependencies the libraries are the crucial
parts and it should be possible to state that in the same way as is
one for libpng.
Maybe it would be useful to separate the ports into a library-port
and an application port, i.e., libjpeg and jpeg-bin or jpeg-apps?
Why is it useful to separate these? We just run the makefile the
software provides. It's a bit of work to separate this into two
ports, for what benefit?
Please forward this to macports-devel if appropriate.
Generally it would be nice to have a section on "naming portfiles"
in the new guide.
What guidelines would you propose?
_______________________________________________
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
