FYI: new port security/portaudit-db

[Oliver Eikemeier]

Jon Passki wrote:

>> Again:
>>
>> * a port should *not* change its version numbering based on
>> included components
>>
>> * restrain yourself to *one* suffix in the package name (and use
>> a dash to seperate it from the main ports name)
>
> No bikeshed here, just pointing out that if you go this route then
> change the porters-handbook.  Chapter 5.2.4 allows what you wish to
> avoid.

<http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-
handbook/makefile-naming.html#PORTING-PKGNAME>

5.2.4 Package Naming Conventions

3. If the port can be built with different _hardcoded defaults_ (usually 
part
    of the directory name in a family of ports), the -compiled.specifics 
part
    should state the compiled-in defaults (the hyphen is optional).

Which I read as `use PKGNAMESUFFIX for slave ports and make it part of 
the
directory name' and `a hyphen is the natural separator'.

And no paragraph recommends changing the version number depending on
configuration options. In fact it will confuse most package tools, like
pkg_version, portupgrade and poraudit.

Why do you think the FreeBSD Porter's Handbook encourages these things?

-Oliver