Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 22:11:15 +0300 From: David Naylor <naylor.b.david@gmail.com> To: marino@freebsd.org Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, Dag-Erling =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no>, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, jwbacon@tds.net, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r370220 - in head/biology: . ncbi-blast Message-ID: <1666307.NCDYOHOeBx@dragon.dg> In-Reply-To: <54A05E8E.20802@marino.st> References: <201410062016.s96KGZP8084850@svn.freebsd.org> <86sifzef1i.fsf@nine.des.no> <54A05E8E.20802@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart31552887.ecOQt1le2B Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Sunday, 28 December 2014 20:48:30 John Marino wrote: > On 12/28/2014 20:43, Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav wrote: > > John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> writes: > >> Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav <des@des.no> writes: > >>> The original BLAST is at 2.2.26, while BLAST+ is at 2.2.30. > >>=20 > >> so what? a PORTEPOCH is matched to a specific package name. > >=20 > > Yes, and this name cannot be used for the original BLAST program wi= thout > > bumping PORTEPOCH. This port should have been named ncbi-blast-plu= s or > > something similar. >=20 > This is just an opinion. There is no technical basis for bumping > PORTEPOCH. To boil this down, you are saying the port has a misleadi= ng > name and should have been named something else by Jason who submitted= > the PR to add the port. If I may interject. It appears to me that the issue is a new port is u= sing=20 the name of an old port, thus packages of the old port may conflict wit= h the=20 new port. =20 However, in this case I do not believe it to be the case: - The old port (biology/blast [1]) has a PKGBASE of wu-plast - The new port (biology/ncbi-blast [2]) has a PKGBASE of ncbiblast Since pkg(8) uses the package name (defined in [3] as PKGBASE, which in= turn=20 is defined at [4] as ) in determining dependencies [5] and, as seen abo= ve,=20 these differ I think it is safe to assume that these are too completely= =20 different ports and will not get accidentally confused as the same port= by any=20 tool, thus PORTEPOCH does not need to be invoked. =20 Regards [1] See=20 http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/branches/2014Q3/biology/blast/Makefile?= revision=3D359976&view=3Dmarkup [2] See=20 http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/biology/ncbi-blast/Makefile?revisi= on=3D370220&view=3Dmarkup [3] See=20 http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/Mk/bsd.port.mk?revision=3D375740&v= iew=3Dmarkup#l4815 [4] See=20 http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/Mk/bsd.port.mk?revision=3D375740&v= iew=3Dmarkup#l2673 [5] See section "Manifest File Details", entry "name" from pkg-create(8= ) man=20 pages. --nextPart31552887.ecOQt1le2B Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (FreeBSD) iQJ8BAABCgBmBQJUoGPmXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQ5NDhFQzUxMUEyN0YwMzAyRTc5OUI1M0FB RDYzRkE4REQ2QjJEQTU1AAoJEK1j+o3WstpVHs0P/1t3pM6B8wGUUkpZ0XuZxQCd 8p9bgwn5326gTXwdWRaPzrSWPJZvFjcpFGxwMxFb2lzlEKS5KTAVV7PEWKj3x9E8 O7eUiX8tvCl+17RfZeCcvh2FuiW02ef+mM2v3lN8VFVQescQhJMTbSqNVB7VPQG4 fNxB55AXIWp0oqU7vDVo59fFwnJJyR2vOZ8qLgxDcOtWb2EhPA45QVyVOB3A76LJ ifzoac5LChwcMOghl/9BaSmAXTx0FSyHZtoBJirHSImfAm9Go4NUOc8FTkvntdDN J5iOJa4eCMLxQRmosTFSWAVu5lu42b9XDmYLu1EwdMtU1wewkvtlaWqb++pO3iOZ fa0snoXhF4dZ+aGEYMF5ykjLeffwP/bLO2hhmOEcSnU/1+/W9SCuDJXWmDvS3hS0 jB+odoLAqKUOodf0v9LEIJVE/J1Ux024qmzlbXwKmY6iEwHzh1+jQdDcy1KYSUZn YIlWib9P7sv/hN3ZNKxWwQMpzQSJRLHm49sUUcHSDxjDJAa+ZJe51y5V64JV5ehZ E+l1Pio61mWL6on7j/799XLvo92hofIx167GpeoHTrGfHh3Y2xl6oTJ3KQNA8N32 Ko5ZAVSFpqVv7jZVqifHdTxMHS4a/ocdanuML9I3nMgOIdQxrLvUEk+M8JBR8vM5 KsVBRlG4qSDdOO3dN7lG =seh5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart31552887.ecOQt1le2B--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1666307.NCDYOHOeBx>