On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 20:24:00 +0100 Gary Jennejohn <gary.jennej...@freenet.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 11:01:24 -0800 > Charlie Kester <corky1...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > On Tue 09 Mar 2010 at 10:25:14 PST Gary Jennejohn wrote: > > >On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 10:23:51 -0500 > > >Steven Kreuzer <skreu...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > >So where's the problem? sysutils/gag doesn't seem to install a > > >binary which would conflict with security/gag. In fact, it > > >doesn't seem to install an executable at all, based on examining > > >the Makefile and pkg-plist. > > > > Could be a problem for tools like portmaster that allow the user to > > specify the port name only, rather than category/portname. > > > > If a user has both gags installed and then runs "portmaster gag", > > how should portmaster resolve the ambiguity? > > > > By examining the ORIGIN tags in +CONTENTS and asking the user which > one to update? > > IMO this is a putative problem which shouldn't be "fixed" by renaming > a port. But I'm just a lowly ports committer and not a member of > portmgr. They also both have the "UNIQUENAME" of gag, so if they had options they would be stored in the same directory, I suspect there are potential problems with package names too. Whether or not any of this actually causes a problem with gag, it seems to me to be better to avoid creating a precedent. _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"