svn commit: r377721 - in head/devel/newfile: . files

[Lars Engels]

On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 07:30:54PM +1100, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
> On 23/01/2015 11:21 PM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:48:06PM +1100, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
> >> On 23/01/2015 10:02 PM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> >>> TBH, we should have never allowed to have dotted port names in the first
> >>> place.  It already caused problems with e.g. ".core"-suffixed ports that
> >>> had to be renamed or something like that in the past.  I think it's quite
> >>> clear that using dot in names is asking for trouble (and such names look
> >>> plain ugly), but people just can't refrain from using dot. :-(  Maybe it
> >>> is some kind of mental disorder similar to incomprehensible predilection
> >>> some people exhibit to Comic Sans font.
> >>
> >> Blame me, I asked for it. POLA violation when I ran port create. It
> >> created py-gandi
> >>
> >> https://pypi.python.org/pypi/gandi.cli
> > 
> > It would all be much easier if those dotted ports were s/\./-/g prior to
> > adding them.
> > 
> > ./danfe
> > 
> 
> I'd like to enable easy discovery by users and better search relevance
> by matching upstream names as closely as possible.
> 
> This is especially true for major language ports catalogues like python,
> and I imagine ruby and perl too. What characters are allowed or not by
> those upstream naming systems is a secondary and separate issue
> 
> Other than the subjective prettiness factor, which I don't have a
> position on, what technical considerations or issues are there, if any,
> with dotted ports?

There might be scripts which expect the first dot in the version part of
a package's name and not in the name itself.