>Number:         27048
>Category:       pkg
>Synopsis:       mail/evolution14 has a crazy DISTNAME
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       non-critical
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    pkg-manager
>State:          open
>Class:          sw-bug
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Mon Sep 27 10:27:00 UTC 2004
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:     Robert Elz
>Release:        NetBSD 1.6X   (-- pkgsrc current as of date/time of this mail)
>Organization:
	Prince of Songkla University
>Environment:
System: NetBSD jade.coe.psu.ac.th 1.6X NetBSD 1.6X (JADE) #17: Wed Sep 24 20:25:35 ICT 2003 kre@jade.coe.psu.ac.th:/usr/src/real-sys/arch/i386/compile/JADE i386
Architecture: i386
Machine: i386
>Description:
	The DISTNAME listed for mail/evolution14 does not exist,
	never existed, and I doubt will ever exist...

>How-To-Repeat:
	By inspection, or by attempting anything that requires use
	of the distfile for mail/evolution14 (like "make fetch" or
	"make checksum" or ...)

	This came about in rev 1.2 of pkgsrc/mail/evolution14/Makefile
	which has the following log entry ...

Let's rename the binary package to evolution14, as it does not conflict with
the new 2.x branch.

	Now personally, I believe that renaming packages, so some other
	package can take over the name the old one had is simply
	wrong, and should *never* be done - rather the new package should
	be given a new name (alternatively, it could be treated as an
	upgrade, and simply replace the old with the new - which is the
	right thing to do here I have no idea).

	However, assuming that one did want to rename the binary package
	for some obscure reason, then ...

-# $NetBSD: Makefile,v 1.1 2004/09/21 17:17:43 jmmv Exp $
+# $NetBSD: Makefile,v 1.2 2004/09/21 17:21:07 jmmv Exp $
 
 -DISTNAME=		evolution-1.4.6
 +DISTNAME=		evolution14-1.4.6
  CATEGORIES=		mail time gnome

	is *not* the way to do it.   Sure, changing DISTNAME does change
	the package name (by default anyway, including here), but
	this has other side effects - like causing the file needed
	as the distfile to suddenly demand a new name, which certainly
	isn't going to exist at any of the distribution sites.
	This could never have been tested, now could it?

>Fix:
	Revert 1.2 of evolution14/Makefile, and then add
		PKGNAME=evolution14-1.4.6
	instead (or, if you prefer, some fancy make type
	substitution expression on the value of DISTNAME)

	Better would have been for the new mail/evolution to have
	been called mail/evolution2 and this one left alone - or
	actually, this one should always have been mail/evolution14,
	mail/evolution should be what is now mail/evolution12.
	But it is too late for that now, "fixing" it would make
	things worse.   But, please, let this be the LAST time that
	this kind of name shuffling happens!

ps: changing the package name this way for evolution14 isn't all that
important, since evolution12 doesn't have a similar hack done to it.
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted: