Naming and labeling

[Adriaan de Groot]

On Tuesday, September 06, 2016 10:30:31 PM Tobias C. Berner wrote:
> On 6 September 2016 at 11:03, Adriaan de Groot <groot at kde.org> wrote:
> >  - Those ports often have PORTNAME set, to just * (without the -kde4) and
> > PKGNAMESUFFIX set to -kde4
> 
> That seems sensible, also the DISTFILES magic works then and does not
> require it to be manually set.
> 
> >  - Ports that use KDE Frameworks 5 as a platform are often found in
..
> > PKGNAMESUFFIX set to -kf5
> 
> The rule however should probably be to avoid these suffixes whenever
> possible,
> unless we do the thing for another thread you mention below...

That seems sensible except that you also point out that we'll have to have -
kf5 and -kde4 versions of many things in ports for a little while, just to 
enable migration and UPDATING. So we would end up with what, <foo> -> <foo>-
kde4 for a while (to allow for graceful moving), then adding <foo> which is 
the newer version? Seems like a way to make things take extra long.

Or do you mean <foo> should be the preferred <foo>, and we can add <foo>-kf5, 
wait while that settles, and then do a <foo> -> <foo>-kde4 and <foo>-kf5 -> 
<foo> renaming at once to swap out the preferred version?

I don't know enough abouts ports-procedures to know what's preferable. 
Personally I prefer less moving and renaming, which suggests <foo>-kde4 and 
<foo>-kf5 from the start.
 
> > not KDE5). But applications shouldn't necessarily say they are "for KDE";
> 
> If the port is part of the KDE Applications release cycle, I think "KDE"
> can stay.
> I think gnome's applications do also carry a "GNOME" in their COMMENT from
> a quick grep.
> But I agree, that it should not carry a version in general.

OK. That's another tidying-step to do at some point (soon-ish).

> > Generally speaking, we won't have a -kf5 *and* a -kde4 version of a single
> > port (that's a discussion for another thread).
> 
> Which we need to have before we can think of updating KDE Applications in
> ports
> to anything even nearly recent.

Hm. That makes things extra-difficult, since it sounds like "everything is 
blocked" again, and plasma5/ branch is enough of a bear as it is.

> > Does this make sense as a general description of how we name ports and
> > packages? (If so, it should go into our area51 developer bits on techbase
> > or
> > on our site).
> 
> maybe also on the FreeBSD wiki? https://wiki.freebsd.org/KDE as a new item
> under "Team best practices"? Just to give you more options to think about ^^
> But as always, do what you think fits best :)

I'd prefer to have fewer places to maintain, rather than more. Hence my 
desire, ages ago, to move most of freebsd.kde.org to techbase, or to 
consolidate the other way and produce a nice f.k.o and drop the techbase bits.

[ade]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-freebsd/attachments/20160907/2651a4c9/attachment.sig>