Lawrence Velázquez writes: > Resurrecting this thread. Let's keep general renaming discussion here.
Sure, sounds good. > On Sep 16, 2014, at 5:22 PM, Ryan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It's been proposed on this list that we should rename MySQL ports e.g. >> mysql51 -> mysql-5.1; this would be to match the existing new ports >> mariadb-10.0 and mariadb-10.1. Consistency is good, especially within a >> particular type of software (e.g. MySQL in this case) but renaming MySQL >> ports is more problematic than renaming most ports, because MySQL ports are >> database servers and users may have databases and config files in their >> default version-specific directories which the user would manually have to >> move. > > Consistency is good, but I'd argue not especially critical. If migrating a > particular port or set of ports would be too much work, it would not be the > end of the world if we left it/them. > > Consistency of variant names is probably more important than consistency of > port names, since it affects variant inheritance. This is an important point, thanks. >> The problem with dashes in port names is that a dash is not a legal >> character in a variant name because it is confused with the syntax for >> disabling a variant, and often when there are multiple versions of a port, >> other ports will want to reference those multiple versions in corresponding >> variants. > > True, but we already have tons of ports with hyphens in their names. It seems > odd to me to use hyphens in some places (e.g., `py34-requests`) but avoid > them in others (`gcc49`). Very much agreed. >> The problem with dots in port names is that so far "port lint" has declared >> the dot an illegal character in a variant name. This has led the perl5 port >> for example to adopt variant names like perl5_16 which I've always found a >> little confusing. It has been nice that under the original naming scheme, >> one could assume that in many cases the variant name matches the name of the >> dependency that will be added. If you want to use the python27 port, you use >> a port's +python27 variant, etc. > > Matching variants and dependencies is certainly nice, but I don't think we > should get hung up on it, since the dependencies are added automatically. I > personally would be entirely fine with `+gcc4.9` pulling in `gcc-4.9`, and I > think the hyphenated port names look cleaner. This is entirely subjective, of > course. > >> The only disadvantage I see to the old naming scheme is ambiguity when a >> version number component reaches two digits, e.g. is the scala210 port >> version 2.1.0 or 2.10? (It's 2.10.) Is the ruby186 port version 1.8.6 or >> 1.86? (It's 1.8.6 -- perhaps this port should have been named ruby18 >> instead.) Leaving the dot in would remove the ambiguity, as demonstrated by >> the Perl ports, and "port lint" may be overly cautious in its prohibition of >> the dot in variant names. Someone should do some tests. Make variants with >> dots, like "mysql5.1", and see if they work correctly. Can you install the >> port? Can you upgrade the port? Can you uninstall the port? What if other >> variants are also selected? If everything works fine we can relax this lint >> restriction. > > I haven't done any tests, but I'd much prefer adding the periods, if possible. I agree with this, too. _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
