ports/148223: [PATCH] editors/hte ability to install as hte instead of ht

[Marcus von Appen]

On, Tue Jul 13, 2010, Aldis Berjoza wrote:

>  On 13/07/2010 22:41, mva at FreeBSD.org wrote:
>  > Synopsis: [PATCH] editors/hte ability to install as hte instead of ht
>  > 
>  > State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback
>  > State-Changed-By: mva
>  > State-Changed-When: Tue Jul 13 19:41:11 UTC 2010
>  > State-Changed-Why: 
>  > In my opinion it does not make much sense to add a CONFLICTS in case
>  > someone uses the default options for editors/hte, if it could be avoided
>  > by simply renaming the ht binary of the upcoming texlive-core port to
>  > something else and add a pkg-message entry for it. This causes less work
>  > for users of both ports. Is there some important reason, why
>  > texlive-core's ht binary should not be renamed for the port?
>  > 
>  > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=148223
>  
>  hte is only 1 binary, while texlive is HUGE (+-5229 distfiles)
>  It my opinion it's much easier to rename hte and add CONFLICTS line,
>  then risk breaking HUGE system such as texlive.
>  
>  Even more, I'd personally prefer hte to install hte binary instead of
>  ht. I remember back in days, when I just started using FreeBSD and was a
>  noob, it took me quite some time to figure out, that editors/hte port
>  install ht binary....
>  So I also propose to install editors/hte as hte instead of ht (however,
>  that probably breaks some licensing terms or something like that.
>  Correct me if I'm wrong)
>  
>  Also note that texlive 2010 will have FreeBSD binaries as well, and I'm
>  very happy about it, but I doubt, that tug.org will rename ht (of
>  texlive-core) just because 1 port install package with same name....
>  
>  In the end user will probably rewrote one with another (just like me)
>  
>  Sorry if this is quite long, I just wanted to stress-out how texlive is
>  important (at least for me)

I see your point and agree with it. I do not know about the complexity
of texlive (in terms of tools using and calling each other) nor about
its range of use (in terms of active user base), which might be an
important point to consider, too.

Back to the original issue: I then would favour to rename the
editors/hte binary completely and permanenty to 'hte' and add an
UPDATING entry about that incompatible binary naming change instead of
adding an (in my opinion more confusing) CONFLICTS entry. Although this
might be contrary to POLA, it would cause less confusion and annoyance
for users.

(ports@ CC'd for comments on a best practive here).

Regards
Marcus
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20100713/68ef857b/attachment.pgp