Re: multimedia/vlc{,2,21}

["Kamil Rytarowski" <n54%gmx.com@localhost>]

Martin Husemann wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 05:35:10PM +0100, Ian D. Leroux wrote:
> > I'm mostly judging from the way firefox has been handled, but at least
> > for user-facing applications (as opposed to libraries, programming
> > language interpreters etc.), it makes sense to me that the versionless
> > package name would correspond to what one would generally install by
> > default (i.e. latest stable or supported version), and that package
> > names with baked in versions should be of interest only to those who
> > have a specific requirement for an unusual older version.
> 
> Exactly!
> 
> Maybe s/unusual older/specific/, the same applies to developement/beta
> versions.
> 
> Martin
> 

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.