"Kamil Rytarowski" <n54%gmx.com@localhost> writes: > I'm with Ian here. I was misguided with the naming here.. > and I made a mistake trying to build and use old vlc, > but due to problems I switched to mplayer. > > I usually start with group/appname, not looking at alternatives. > > Next misguiding example: > devel/gdb version 5.3 > devel/gdb6 version 6.2.1 > > Another one: > lang/gcc version 2.95.3 > lang/gcc3 > lang/gcc34 > lang/gcc44 > lang/gcc45 > lang/gcc46 > lang/gcc47 > lang/gcc48 > lang/gcc49 > > A good examples is FireFox, www/firefox is recent. I think everybody agrees it's bad to have a bare name and also versions when the bare name is old. What I was suggesting was that when upstream's behavior led to often needing multiple versions that we only have the versioned names. Had you found "gdb5 gdb6", it would not have been so confusing. In the case of multiple versions, ideally DESCR would have a final line or two explaining how to choose. We tend to just copy DESCR, but I (gdt opinion, not pmc) think there really should be guidance of how to choose, and I've been trying to do that for things I touch. But, I can see the point of keeping the bare name to the recommended version. gdb is back to that now, with gdb5, gdb6, and gdb (which is 7). With gcc, though, i don't think there is a recommended/normal version. It's just always hard.
Description: PGP signature