Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 15:31:28 -0500 From: "Mark Felder" <feld@feld.me> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, "Marcel Bonnet" <marcelbonnet@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Is there a problem with categ/newport-0 ? Message-ID: <op.wznxyqga34t2sn@tech304.office.supranet.net> In-Reply-To: <CAPe0dBn2ioEiz%2B0cOdZMg1DjL%2B0PoDSF06k4iGgp0QLGcEEFpg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAPe0dBn2ioEiz%2B0cOdZMg1DjL%2B0PoDSF06k4iGgp0QLGcEEFpg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 03 Jul 2013 15:15:25 -0500, Marcel Bonnet <marcelbonnet@gmail.com> wrote: > > Is it mandatory to drop the MAJOR_VERSION from the port suffix name? Is > it > optional? Is it mandatory to follow the upstream convention? We have plenty of ports with multiple major versions in the ports tree. Look at MySQL, Postgres, PHP, Perl, phpMyAdmin, etc etc. However, just because port doesn't have a version number in its name doesn't mean the shared library name include directory must be without. I don't believe you'll be breaking any conventions by installing the libraries in a way upstream prefers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.wznxyqga34t2sn>