From nobody Wed Nov 06 16:14:30 2024 X-Original-To: ports@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Xk9JV6DDkz5cl3w for ; Wed, 06 Nov 2024 16:14:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fuz@fuz.su) Received: from fuz.su (fuz.su [IPv6:2001:41d0:8:e508::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "fuz.su", Issuer "fuz.su" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Xk9JV3X5Tz4Vv4; Wed, 6 Nov 2024 16:14:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fuz@fuz.su) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: from fuz.su (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fuz.su (8.18.1/8.18.1) with ESMTPS id 4A6GEV2c014215 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 6 Nov 2024 17:14:33 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from fuz@fuz.su) Received: (from fuz@localhost) by fuz.su (8.18.1/8.18.1/Submit) id 4A6GEVVm014214; Wed, 6 Nov 2024 17:14:31 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from fuz) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 17:14:30 +0100 From: Robert Clausecker To: Olivier Certner Cc: Robert Clausecker , ports@freebsd.org, portmgr@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] New ports category "fs" Message-ID: References: <2826700.iL6vRArjjl@ravel> List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-ports List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2826700.iL6vRArjjl@ravel> X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:16276, ipnet:2001:41d0::/32, country:FR] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4Xk9JV3X5Tz4Vv4 X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Hi Olivier, Am Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 05:09:58PM +0100 schrieb Olivier Certner: > Hi Robert, > > I have a few remarks/questions. > > The move implemented two different operations at once: > 1. Grouping sysutils/fusefs-*, and removing the 'fusefs-' port prefix. > 2. Grouping all filesystems-related ports. > > Old sysutils/fusefs-* ports now do not have the 'fusefs-' prefix, but > the packages produced from them still have. Isn't that slightly confusing? > > That's maybe a non-existent case, but how would we handle a native > driver vs. a FUSE implementation in ports, now that the latter are not > prefixed? The main purpose of the new category is to get rid of the sysutils/fusefs- pseudo category. The prefix stays for installed packages so the PKGNAME doesn't change and binary package users do not get a surprise when they try to update. If for some reason there are multiple packages competing for the same name within the filesystems category, a disambiguating prefix may be added as usual. > Is there a plan to tag the old sysutils/fusefs-* ports with, e.g., > some 'fusefs' virtual category? That could come in handy when listing > which FUSE filesystems are available (in particular with 'make search > cat=fusefs'), even if there are other, though less user-friendly, ways > to obtain this list. Right now you can find these easily using "git grep '^USES=.*fuse', though in principle a fusefs (or just fuse) virtual category might be nice. Feel free to propose such a category. I wanted to keep it with just one new category as to raise the chances of this patch passing review (still took over a month). Yours, Robert Clausecker -- () ascii ribbon campaign - for an encoding-agnostic world /\ - against html email - against proprietary attachments