Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 13:12:11 +0430 From: Mahdi Mokhtari <mmokhi@freebsd.org> To: koobs@freebsd.org Cc: Sunpoet Po-Chuan Hsieh <sunpoet@freebsd.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r442220 - in head/sysutils: . py-gmailfs-fuse Message-ID: <CAN9adSNGqpLOAQJBAyhxWyFoC5rnRj2tRuBE_3wRMYojy0f4mQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <706c5d72-1257-0041-26e6-542cd439099e@FreeBSD.org> References: <201705311520.v4VFKGdW094883@repo.freebsd.org> <CAMHz58SSayA4pr_2iBKa_%2B%2B45ZdS=WXEO%2BExVO=Gisao7xo=Sw@mail.gmail.com> <706c5d72-1257-0041-26e6-542cd439099e@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Might be a good time to change fusefs from an arbitrary port/pkg name
> prefix not accurately reflecting upstream names and use a virtual
> category instead.
> I'm planning to do this for all Python django ports too, as their names
> don't match their upstream counterparts as users expect or when they're
> searching.
Ok, it seems good idea to me :-)
Should we start adding it ("fusefs" or "fuse") to Mk/* then adding it to
CATEGORIES of fuse ports?
--
Best regards, MMokhi.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAN9adSNGqpLOAQJBAyhxWyFoC5rnRj2tRuBE_3wRMYojy0f4mQ>