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

[Michael Gmelin]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 07:26:02 -0600
Jason Bacon <jwbacon at tds.net> wrote:

> On 12/30/14 04:40, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> > Michael Gmelin <grembo at freebsd.org> writes:
> >> 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).
> > I never asked anyone to bump PORTEPOCH.  I merely pointed out that
> > if the ncbi-blast name were to be used for BLAST, PORTEPOCH would
> > have to be bumped due to PORTVERSION regressing from 2.2.30 to
> > 2.2.26.
> >
> > DES
> 
> A valid point.  Not likely to happen, since the only other candidate
> for the name ncbi-blast already exists as ncbi-toolkit.
> 
> Still, I would not be averse to renaming it just for clarity.  I
> would suggest "ncbi-blast+".  I don't know if there are any taboos
> about using a '+' in a port name, but there are currently 64 ports
> that do it and I like to keep things short and sweet.
> 
> Now would be the time to do this, since it's still new and not yet a 
> dependency for any other ports.
> 

I would prefer ncbi-blast-plus, but I cannot find anything forbidding
nci-blast+ in the handbook, so I would be fine with that (it's not very
specific on this topic):
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/makefile-naming.html

Is there a preferred way of renaming a port? Otherwise I would just
rmport it and re-add it under the new name.

Michael

-- 
Michael Gmelin