Subject: Re: difficulty from renaming packages, and how to deal
To: None <tech-pkg@NetBSD.org>
From: Aleksey Cheusov <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/07/2007 23:40:47
>> In my view OVERRIDES (renamings or something else, it doesn't matter)
>> are very close to CONFLICTS, DEPENDS and some other variables.
>> Its primary source (place where it should be specified) should be
>> package's Makefile, not CHANGES-YYYYMM.
>> And it should be a part of package summary information, i.e. be
>> printed with 'pkg_info -X' and therefore be a part of pkg_summary.gz.
>> In this case pkgsrc binary distributions will be more consistent.
> I suggested similar in September.
I probably missed this.
> pkg_summary(5) can be extended to add two optional variables that are
> defined in the respective Makefiles:
> PREV_PKGBASE for previous package name(s)
> PREV_PKGPATH for previous PKGPATH(s)
Is it really necessary to keep two variables?
PREV_PKGPATH looks enought.
> If a tool searching for a PKGBASE (or PKGNAME) didn't find it, it could
> next search for PREV_PKGBASE to find out new PKGNAME.
> Also this would help with conflicts: ignore the CONFLICTS if the
> PREV_PKGBASE had the same PKGBASE as the CONFLICTS.
Semantics of CONFLICTS and PREV_PKGBASE (OVERRIDES sounds much better
for me :-) ) should be strictly separated.
> I don't think any one complained about this. I may start adding support
> and documentation for these in a few days.
> Jeremy C. Reed
Best regards, Aleksey Cheusov.