cvs commit: ports/www Makefile ports/www/p5-FCGI-ProcManager
Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist
yarodin at gmail.com
Sun Jan 13 10:20:40 PST 2008
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:32:55PM +0100, Anton Berezin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 09:41:26PM +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 09:00:27PM +0100, Martin Wilke wrote:
> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > > Hash: SHA1
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 01:40:41PM +0100, Anton Berezin wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 12:28:05AM +0000, Martin Wilke wrote:
> > > > > Why this ever got added? There is an identical port
> > > > > www/p5-FastCGI-ProcManager. Now we are getting PRs with updates to
> > > > > this one (see 119300), where PR authors *complain* about someone
> > > > > updating "the wrong port", refering to gabor's update of
> > > > > www/p5-FastCGI-ProcManager recently...
> > > > >
> > > > > What a mess. I'd like committers adding new ports to be a *bit*
> > > > > more careful and verify that the port is indeed *new*.
> > > > >
> > > > > It can be argued that the "new" name is better that the "old" one,
> > > > > but this is an entirely separate can of worm. Grrrr.
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > After a discussion with tobez on irc, we have made plans to remove
> > > > www/p5-FastCGI-ProcManager after the slush. The new Port make more
> > > > sense and have a Maintainer.
> > >
> > > As a side note: doesn't `FastCGI' look as a better name? We already
> > > have `www/p5-FastCGI' and `www/p5-FastCGI-ProcManager', and only one
> > > `www/p5-FCGI-Async'. Maybe the latter should just be repocopied to
> > > match the former ones?
> > The problem here is that the actual module on CPAN is named FCGI.
> > Gratuitously changing original name of software is something
> > that we are trying to avoid historically, even if the original
> > software breaks some other naming conventions by itself (a good
> > example here would be p5-CGI.pm, which is called "CGI.pm" on CPAN,
> > unlike the vast majority of CPAN content).
> > In an ideal world, this would have been caught 3 years ago, and we would
> > not be having this conversation.
> Fair enough; in fact, I was suspecting something like this.
It's very interesting and very usefull disscussion of course. BUT!
Is somebody will fix it? I'm wrote PR with simplest issue of this problem
more than a week ago - http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=119299
More information about the cvs-all