svn commit: r370220 - in head/biology: . ncbi-blast

[John Marino]

On 12/28/2014 20:18, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> John Marino <freebsd.contact at marino.st> writes:
>> It's a brand new port with a unique name.  Why is "bumping PORTEPOCH"
>> considered necessary?
> 
> The original BLAST is at 2.2.26, while BLAST+ is at 2.2.30.

so what?  a PORTEPOCH is matched to a specific package name.  the
version of the original blast port has nothing to do with the version of
new port with a unique pkgname.   There is no technical reason to
increase a PORTEPOCH of a branch new port where the version has never
regressed.



>> Why is the existence of this port blocking the introduction of a new
>> BLAST port?
> 
> It is not BLAST, but is called blast.

that will not block the introduction of a new port, nor will it prevent
any port from using the proposed blast port as a dependency.  There is
no technical block.  At best this is misleading, but not a technical
problem.

> 
>> It seems that all that is needs is to update the pkg-descr file to
>> specify it's the blast+ implementation.
> 
> BLAST and BLAST+ are two different programs.

So noting this in pkg-descr and maybe COMMENT should be enough to
distinguish to somebody that is looking.

John