Subject: Re: difficulty from renaming packages, and how to deal
To: None <>
From: Aleksey Cheusov <>
List: tech-pkg
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 
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.