Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 08:35:50 -0400 From: "Dan Langille" <dan@langille.org> To: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: LATEST_LINK unique or not? Message-ID: <412AFDE6.28048.83DAA30C@localhost> In-Reply-To: <B932C907-F5C1-11D8-8CAA-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> References: <412AEBA6.17012.839357E2@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 24 Aug 2004 at 13:35, Oliver Eikemeier wrote: > Dan Langille wrote: > > > On 23 Aug 2004 at 22:52, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 07:00:32PM -0400, Dan Langille wrote: > >>> On 24 Aug 2004 at 0:37, Oliver Eikemeier wrote: > >>> > >>>> Dan Langille wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Is LATEST_LINK supposed to be unique? It's not. There's about 201 > >>>>> ports which have duplicate values. > >>>> > >>>> It is, expect when NO_LATEST_LINK is set (in which case no latest > >>>> link > >>>> exists). Did you filtr out these cases? Everything else is bug, Kris > >>>> did > >>>> some survey AFAIK. > >>> > >>> I obtained my list from the output of "make -V LATEST_LINK" and paid > >>> no attention to NO_LATEST_LINK. > >>> > >>> Are you saying LATEST_LINK must be ignored if NO_LATEST_LINK is set? > >>> Why is this not done programatically? i.e. output an empty string. > >> > >> The only reason is because LATEST_LINK was originally used only within > >> bsd.port.mk in situations where NO_LATEST_LINK is tested. Perhaps > >> you're using it for something else now that might justify changing the > >> behaviour. > > FWIIW, the real `fix' would be to require uniqueness of LATEST_LINK, > even when NO_LATEST_LINK is set. I think we have more than one use for a > unique package name without version number. Should I just make a patch > for the tree? > > > I added the LATEST_LINK value to FreshPorts because I was told it was > > the name of the package. This information is now used to provide > > this information: To add the package: pkg_add -r bacula > > This is correct, but there may be situations when a package does not > exist (NO_PACKAGE) or you have to specify the exact url (NO_LATEST_LINK). FreshPorts is recording neither NO_PACKAGE nor NO_LATEST_LINK. I think it should. At present, the FreshPorts information supplied in the "To add the package:" field is sometimes incorrect. These additional bits will correct that. > > LATEST_LINK may also be used by other websites that wish to link to > > FreshPorts but have only the package name. This differs from the > > conventional category/port path used by FreshPorts. For example, > > http://beta.freshports.org/?package=bacula will redirect you to > > http://beta.freshports.org/sysutils/bacula/ > > > > It would be good if LATEST_LINK was empty if it was not meant to be > > used. However, I don't want to break existing usage if we do that. > > As said above: I think a global unique LATEST_LINK is beneficial, and > since we already have something like this in CVSROOT-ports/modules, it > shouldn't be too difficult. I'm assuming that whatever solution is taken, make -V will still be the method for obtaining this information. -- Dan Langille : http://www.langille.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?412AFDE6.28048.83DAA30C>