port renaming

[Chris H]

On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 10:53:56 -0700 Freddie Cash <fjwcash at gmail.com> wrote

> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Vsevolod Stakhov <vsevolod at highsecure.ru>
> wrote:
> 
> > On 16/07/2015 18:32, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Vsevolod Stakhov
> > > <vsevolod at highsecure.ru> wrote:
> > >> On 16/07/2015 18:11, Henry Hu wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Vsevolod Stakhov
> > >>> <vsevolod at highsecure.ru <mailto:vsevolod at highsecure.ru>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>     On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Anton Yuzhaninov <
> > citrin at citrin.ru
> > >>>     <mailto:citrin at citrin.ru>> wrote:
> > >>>     >
> > >>>     > Port maintainers and port commiters, when
> > PORTNAME/PKGNAMEPREFIX/PKGNAMESUFFIX is changed, please note this change in
> > commit log and for important ports also in /usr/ports/UPDATING. Any rename
> > affect at leas some of FreeBSD users and
> > >>>     >
> > >>>     > Depends in our local ports was broken and I spent some time to
> > figure out why.
> > >>>     > It turns out, that PORTNAME for graphics/gd was changed in
> > r324437.
> > >>>     > No singe word about this rename was added to commit message or
> > UPDATING...
> > >>>
> > >>>     From the perspective of pkg things are even worse, as pkg can no
> > >>>     longer detect that the renamed package is a replacement for some
> > >>>     existing one. It breaks many stuff and solver could hardly help to
> > >>>     resolve this in a pain-less matter. We need something like
> > 'Replace'
> > >>>     or 'Obsolete' field badly. 'UPDATING' does NOT help to solve this
> > task
> > >>>     at all.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> We already have the 'MOVED' file. Does it help?
> > >>
> > >> It doesn't because:
> > >>
> > >> 1) it is human readable and not very convenient for parsing;
> > >> 2) we must keep this information on per-package basis and not globally;
> > >> 3) many items are missing in MOVED (and I've recently missed one when
> > >> changing a port, for example)
> > >> 4) MOVED contains too many unnecessary information that is useful merely
> > >> because we are using archaic version control system (namely, subversion)
> > >>
> > >> So the answer is no: we need a special field in manifests to make
> > >> renaming transparent for pkg and, in turn, for users.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Vsevolod Stakhov
> > >
> > >
> > > So basically you need a data structure in the pkg metadata that can
> > > track all the previous origins for the port (not just the last because
> > > ports might have multiple renames). That's quite a tall order I might
> > > say.
> >
> > Why? We have already arrays in a package's metadata. For instance,
> > licenses or dependencies. And we can obviously avoid that by placing a
> > corresponding field 'Obsoleted by' in the *old* package. Then we'd need
> > merely the last rename.
> >
> 
> ​Or a "Replaces:" field in the new package, similar to how Debian packages
> work.​
Wouldn't the _revision_ number be enough to find the _commit_
messages? Wouldn't that be enough to track any relevant info --
name/directory change, ...

--Chris
> 
> 
> -- 
> Freddie Cash
> fjwcash at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ports at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"