cvs commit: ports/www Makefile ports/www/p5-FCGI-ProcManager Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist

[Yar Odin]

> 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.
>
> ./danfe

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