Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:21:11 +0200 From: Kurt Jaeger <pi@opsec.eu> To: Ruslan Mahmatkhanov <cvs-src@yandex.ru> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: security/hydra and www/hydra Message-ID: <20100721202111.GE4468@home.opsec.eu> In-Reply-To: <4C472AB1.9070209@yandex.ru> References: <390621279717692@web26.yandex.ru> <86r5iwkciz.fsf@chateau.d.if> <4C472AB1.9070209@yandex.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 21.07.2010 20:47, Ashish SHUKLA ??????????: > > In case of multiple ports installing files with same name at same path, then > > one of them needs to alter the file names by using suffix or prefix, like GNU > > projects do when they collide with BSD equivalents by using 'g' as prefix. > > I don't think that prefixing gnu tools is good example. > For example we have native make in /usr/bin and gmake > in /usr/local/bin.And native make is in base system, and > gmake is a port. > > So why CONFLICTS needed then for? It's needed here because both ports install into the same file. But you are absolutly right, two ports with the same name (hydra) are also bad. One of the should be changed, e.g. to hydra-webserver. > And is this ok to have two ports with the same name. No, it's bad and should be avoided. I'm pretty sure some portupgrade tool will break. -- pi@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 10 years to go !
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100721202111.GE4468>