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

[Anton Berezin]

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.

Cheers,
\Anton.
-- 
We're going for 'working' here. 'clean' is for people with skills...
-- Flemming Jacobsen