[CFT] UNIQUENAME patches

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 05:11:25PM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 05:06:36PM +0200, Mel Flynn wrote:
> > On 16-6-2012 16:53, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 03:13:28PM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> > >> On 16/06/2012 14:18, Chris Rees wrote:
> > >>> That's great-- though rather than patching colliding-only ports, can't
> > >>> we just add the category to it?
> > >>>
> > >>> .for cat in ${CATEGORIES}
> > >>> UNIQUEPREFIX?= ${cat}
> > >>> .endfor
> > >>>
> > >>> (copying the code from PKGCATEGORY; might be better off moving the
> > >>> PKGCATEGORY code up higher and just using that).
> > >>
> > >> Yes.  I thought long and hard about doing that, but I opted not to for
> > >> two reasons:
> > >>
> > >>    1) Using the port name + a uniqueprefix where necessary produces what
> > >>       is close to the minimal change required to give every port a
> > >>       unique name.  The UNIQUENAME won't actually change for quite a
> > >>       lot of ports under my scheme.
> > >>
> > >>    2) As a way of future-proofing against reorganizations of the ports
> > >>       tree.  What tends to happen is that a new category is invented
> > >>       and a number of ports are moved into it.  My way should avoid
> > >>       changing the UNIQUENAME in the majority of cases.
> > >>
> > >> Remember that changing the UNIQUENAME changes where the record of the
> > >> port options are stored, and either we annoy a lot of users by making
> > >> them fill in a buch of dialogues all over again, or we have to invent
> > >> some complicated mechanism copy the old options settings to the new
> > >> directory.  (Yes -- this sort of thing will occur with the changes as
> > >> written.  It can't be avoided entirely.)
> > >>
> > >> Plus I think it would be more natural and easier for maintainers and
> > >> end-users to talk about (say) "phpmyadmin" rather than
> > >> "databases-phpmyadmin."
> > >>
> > >> 	Cheers,
> > >>
> > >> 	Matthew
> > >>
> > >> -- 
> > >> Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.
> > >> PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > > 
> > > I'm strongly against adding something related to the category automatically.
> > > Because I'm thinking about binary managerment, adding PKGCATEGORY to uniquename
> > > would mean a package tracking will be lots in case of moving a port from a
> > > category to another. Currently in pkgng a package is identified by its origin
> > > and thus can't survive automatically from a move, because origin changes.
> > 
> > You should solve this using a better index format. I figured out years
> > ago that the INDEX format used by the ports system is not a good format
> > for binary upgrades.
> > 
> > <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2008-December/187796.html>
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Mel
> 
> Before saying that you should have a look at what pkgng is. pkgng doesn't give a
> shit about index. and changing the INDEX won't solve that if you have no way
> unique way to identify a package you are doomed, have a look at every single
> package management system in the world, all of the sane one with real binary
> management system have a unique way to identify packages. We don't !
> 
> Bapt


Forgot to say that origin is a good way to identify a package until we will have
sub packages (which we really need)
sub package will mean N packages will have the same origin. that way origin will
not become unique anymore.

regards,
Bapt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20120616/6e8704ad/attachment.pgp