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

[Alexey Dokuchaev]

On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 03:02:21PM +0100, Lars Engels wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 07:30:54PM +1100, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
> > I'd like to enable easy discovery by users and better search relevance
> > by matching upstream names as closely as possible. [...]
> > 
> > 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.

Right, but not only that.  I've mentioned that it had bitten us in the past
and digged these two commits:

    http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision&revision=288024
    http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision&revision=288046

One could argue if we should still care about defunct csup/cvsup or whether
"standard Unix file-cleaners will come through and nuke this directory", or
whether traditional concept of a "file extension" should affect directory
names, but IMHO all these illustrate fragility of dotted directories quite
clearly already.

Even if one disagrees with my sens esthetique, the fact that dotted dirnames
did create problems in the past kind of suggests that they might pop up in
the future.  Then again -- they are ugly; as Lars had mentioned, dots could
be expected to be used exclusively in versions; etc. -- better avoid to this
mess once and for all.  I'll probably cook up a patch to PHB on this matter.

./danfe