On 16 June 2012 15:13, Matthew Seaman <matt...@freebsd.org> 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."
Very thoughtful, OK. You'll also need some sort of cronjob then to yell at people who duplicate UNIQUENAME then, rather like erwin's LATEST_LINK script; ports/Tools/scripts/check-latest-link. Chris _______________________________________________ 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"