[Bug 273053] www/rustypaste: Update to 0.12.1

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=273053

Fernando Apesteguía <fernape@FreeBSD.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|In Progress                 |Open
           Assignee|fernape@FreeBSD.org         |ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org

--- Comment #7 from Fernando Apesteguía <fernape@FreeBSD.org> ---
(In reply to Robert Clausecker from comment #5)

>  I don't see the point quite frankly in bulk search-and-replace of the portname with ${PORTNAME}.

There wasn't such search-and-replace. AFAICT, this was done directly when
creating the port in 31484c7300b6d.

> E.g. a github repository doesn't care about what we call the port of the project hosted there.  There is no reason why its name should be derived from the port name.

Of course a GitHub project doesn't care. We create ports out of GitHub's
repositories and not the other way around. I don't really understand what your
point is here. You are stating something that is already true in the ports
tree.

If we rename this port to "foo", then PORTNAME=foo and we can do
WHATEVER=rustypaste so we again, avoid to type "rustypaste" 11 times in the
Makefile. Get it right once, and you're done. Using PORTNAME in this case is a
matter of convenience, nothing to do with coupling.

>If you have trouble spelling the project name, that's an issue that should be solved by means other than coupling identifiers that are only related by convention (i.e. that we name the port usually the same as the upstream project) and not because they need to be the same.

They don't need to be the same. But we try to follow POLA. Meaning it would be
really confusing to create a port out of a project called upstream
"shelloxidizer" (I'm making this up) and naming it "foobar" in the ports tree.
I think it's a good practice, but at no point it *needs* to be the same, nor
the use of PORTNAME forces us to do that.

Honestly I don't know what kind of improvement we're trying to achieve here.
I saw you already started changing ports this way, so I'm not opposing, but I
will not commit this since I don't agree with the changes. I haven't been
provided with any compelling evidence as to why this is a good thing.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.