From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 3 20:15:26 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61DB9C79 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 20:15:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marcelbonnet@gmail.com) Received: from mail-vc0-x230.google.com (mail-vc0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::230]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29D02139C for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 20:15:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vc0-f176.google.com with SMTP id ha12so416778vcb.35 for ; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 13:15:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=X3T34BZtghKfh3pRcUlvNWq2uRASvh6ITlFOv5ByDSo=; b=j+uB99y/AWINd8Vo2OJtBA3IA0rp0MVsnB8KCrGxOmFYAsXPURmC5WzJ+aj7MdFMCT 356jeXgRdzTDptycmxngVMIJO3RuaTclu/jrfMY5PgHSOQgrETqy+U2M5oZLswQw4nLX g1Pefr9Z+uXJ5RoFfgG1q7mFhRngRBBZ+o4mvBORfRZpFe3ZaGyOVSWM45cva5+CNWHu HH0DoJDAhavf+JjEhQ1BORBOnkY/ZMbkLtLhaqVLE+g0v6htFXK956Gq+7jIw8z7D79C vpDD+ULfQLtO0zyoIJO3Lua30riQH2C9sbo+6EFG0BQ5ZOSPxAUEQeyr0L1GyzvKEKTg KJwA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.163.72 with SMTP id z8mr759389vcx.89.1372882525695; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 13:15:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.23.230 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 13:15:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 17:15:25 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Is there a problem with categ/newport-0 ? From: Marcel Bonnet To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 20:15:26 -0000 Hi, porters. Please, help me to clarify a situation: The upstream of a project noticed that the library is designed to allow parallel installation of different major versions. To facilitate this, the shared library name, include directory, and pkg-config file are suffixed with the major version number of the library. The upstream asks that packagers should follow the same conventions as above. Consider I have ported 5 projects and they all brand new - don't exist in ports tree by now: categ/foo-0 categ/bar-0 categ/abc-0 categ/othernewport-0 categ/anothernewport-0 Is it mandatory to drop the MAJOR_VERSION from the port suffix name? Is it optional? Is it mandatory to follow the upstream convention? If I dropped the sufix name, not only me, but any other people porting projects that depend on these ports would have an extra work dealing with the changes (in linux the headers point to foo-0 and now they should be just "foo" ). So, what is the right thing to do, the guidelines in this situation? Thanks in advance. -- Marcel Bonnet