Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 21:15:41 +0100 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: David Naylor <naylor.b.david@gmail.com> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, =?UTF-8?B?RGFnLUVybGluZyBTbcO4cmdyYXY=?= <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: <54A064ED.8010904@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <1666307.NCDYOHOeBx@dragon.dg> References: <201410062016.s96KGZP8084850@svn.freebsd.org> <86sifzef1i.fsf@nine.des.no> <54A05E8E.20802@marino.st> <1666307.NCDYOHOeBx@dragon.dg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/28/2014 20:11, David Naylor wrote: > If I may interject. It appears to me that the issue is a new port is using > the name of an old port, thus packages of the old port may conflict with the > new port. It's a brand new port. The name was not re-used. > 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 > is defined at [4] as ) in determining dependencies [5] and, as seen above, > these differ I think it is safe to assume that these are too completely > different ports and will not get accidentally confused as the same port by any > tool, thus PORTEPOCH does not need to be invoked. Yes, you've interpreted the situation correctly. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54A064ED.8010904>