LATEST_LINK unique or not?

[Dan Langille]

On 24 Aug 2004 at 14:34, Brandon D. Valentine wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:35:39PM +0200, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
> > FWIIW, the real `fix' would be to require uniqueness of LATEST_LINK, 
> > even when NO_LATEST_LINK is set. I think we have more than one use for a 
> > unique package name without version number. Should I just make a patch 
> > for the tree?
> >
> > As said above: I think a global unique LATEST_LINK is beneficial, and 
> > since we already have something like this in CVSROOT-ports/modules, it 
> > shouldn't be too difficult.
> 
> I think this is a great idea and appreciated Kris's crackdown on it
> several months ago, even setting LATEST_LINK for my ports that don't
> actually build packages, thus never using LATEST_LINK, with the
> anticipation that LATEST_LINK is becoming a defacto unique identifier.
> So let me cheer you on here if you're suggesting that portmgr officially
> require all ports to have a globally unique name.

FWIW, FreshPorts can easily add a LATEST_LINK unique test to its 
existing suite of sanity checks.

For that matter, if anyone wants any particular test added to the 
suite, just define it, and it will be added.  


-- 
Dan Langille : http://www.langille.org/