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

[Michael Gmelin]

> On 28 Dec 2014, at 20:48, John Marino <freebsd.contact at marino.st> wrote:
> 
>> On 12/28/2014 20:43, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
>> John Marino <freebsd.contact at marino.st> writes:
>>> Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des at des.no> writes:
>>>> 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.
>> 
>> Yes, and this name cannot be used for the original BLAST program without
>> bumping PORTEPOCH.  This port should have been named ncbi-blast-plus or
>> something similar.
> 
> This is just an opinion.  There is no technical basis for bumping
> PORTEPOCH.  To boil this down, you are saying the port has a misleading
> name and should have been named something else by Jason who submitted
> the PR to add the port.
> 

Just to add my 2 cents:

I don't really follow the argument of bumping portepoch (it's not a very explicit way of stating that this is not the original version - IMHO it's actually not what portepoch is about).

Based on the arguments I've seen I think renaming the port to ncbi-blast-plus is the best solution - also for future users of the port.

- Michael