Dear Takahiro-san, hope you're doing well. Thanks very much for your input. On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 11:26:01PM +0900, Takahiro Kambe wrote: > In message <63CC4746-8282-4869-8041-7656F1B5CAC7%NetBSD.org@localhost> > on Sun, 14 Feb 2021 14:47:51 +0100, > Juraj Lutter <otis%NetBSD.org@localhost> wrote: > > Regarding naming: those unit-* packages are not essentially a “bindings”, > > they are modules, serving applications in each particular language. > Ah, I see. > > Anyway, prefixing package names with those languages, binary packages > with differnt version of languages can be coexistence. > > Currently, only unit-php contains language's version in its package name: > > unit-php74-1.22.0 > > But not in the case of python and ruby. > > unit-python-1.22.0 > unit-ruby-1.22.0 > > I prefer prefixing with each language for consistent package naming > like this. > > php74-unit-php-1.22.0 > py38-unit-python-1.22.0 > ruby26-unit-ruby-1.22.0 > > It may looks redundant, but below naming might conflict with other > packages. > > php74-unit-1.22.0 > py38-unit-1.22.0 > ruby26-unit-1.22.0 Could you please take a look on those arguments I provided when NGINX Unit and its related ports were added to the FreeBSD ports tree, https://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=863474+0+archive/2020/svn-ports-head/20201101.svn-ports-head The NGINX Unit application languages support packages do not utilize the programming languages infrastructure, like perl/python/ruby modules do. That's why I'd prefer to see the following naming convention for this set of packages: unit-[a proglang][a version of a proglang?]-[unit's version] Hope this naming convention is reasonable and more or less corresponding with the naming conventions in other distributions. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. -- Sergey Osokin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature