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

[Alexey Dokuchaev]

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