Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 24 Jan 2015 15:02:21 +0100
From:      Lars Engels <lars.engels@0x20.net>
To:        Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>, Johannes Jost Meixner <xmj@FreeBSD.org>, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r377721 - in head/devel/newfile: . files
Message-ID:  <20150124140220.GF67556@e-new.0x20.net>
In-Reply-To: <54C3583E.1070205@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <201501231039.t0NAdYS5095664@svn.freebsd.org> <20150123110243.GA64051@FreeBSD.org> <54C234F6.4070805@FreeBSD.org> <20150123122120.GA91455@FreeBSD.org> <54C3583E.1070205@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 07:30:54PM +1100, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
> On 23/01/2015 11:21 PM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:48:06PM +1100, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
> >> On 23/01/2015 10:02 PM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> >>> TBH, we should have never allowed to have dotted port names in the fi=
rst
> >>> place.  It already caused problems with e.g. ".core"-suffixed ports t=
hat
> >>> had to be renamed or something like that in the past.  I think it's q=
uite
> >>> clear that using dot in names is asking for trouble (and such names l=
ook
> >>> plain ugly), but people just can't refrain from using dot. :-(  Maybe=
 it
> >>> is some kind of mental disorder similar to incomprehensible predilect=
ion
> >>> some people exhibit to Comic Sans font.
> >>
> >> Blame me, I asked for it. POLA violation when I ran port create. It
> >> created py-gandi
> >>
> >> https://pypi.python.org/pypi/gandi.cli
> >=20
> > It would all be much easier if those dotted ports were s/\./-/g prior to
> > adding them.
> >=20
> > ./danfe
> >=20
>=20
> I'd like to enable easy discovery by users and better search relevance
> by matching upstream names as closely as possible.
>=20
> This is especially true for major language ports catalogues like python,
> and I imagine ruby and perl too. What characters are allowed or not by
> those upstream naming systems is a secondary and separate issue
>=20
> Other than the subjective prettiness factor, which I don't have a
> position on, what technical considerations or issues are there, if any,
> with dotted ports?

There might be scripts which expect the first dot in the version part of
a package's name and not in the name itself.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150124140220.GF67556>