On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:27:52PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2012/08/18 16:42, Anil Madhavapeddy wrote: > > Are there any special considerations for renaming a port (e.g. > > security/cryptokit -> security/ocaml-cryptokit) in terms of binary upgrades > > between releases? > > > > It would seem that as long as all the dependent ports also have the new > > name, there shouldn't be, but I thought I'd check... > > > > -anil > > quick guide: > > - update any dependent ports. > > - if the path changes, you need an @pkgpath on the old path. > > - if the PKGNAME changes (other than a version increment), > you need an @conflict on the old name, an entry in devel/quirks, > and the version number of the new port must be higher than the > old one. > > - if the plist or the installed files change in any way, bump > REVISION. > > - test by building the new packages, including quirks, putting > them in a directory on their own, installing the old packages, > and running PKG_PATH=/path/to/new-pkgs/ pkg_add -u
Thanks for all this! I'm running these test on the two renamed ports now. As Marc notes, I'm somewhat regretting the change, but there were no downstream dependencies, and it more consistent now (and new dependent ports that use cryptokit are on their way shortly, and so can use the new system). -- Anil Madhavapeddy http://anil.recoil.org
