Fwd: What's the perfered name for zope related modules?

[Pav Lucistnik]

I don't have a strong opinion but I'd go with the option no.2

Li-Wen Hsu píše v so 05. 03. 2011 v 01:13 +0800:

> Since there is no feedback (to my question) on freebsd-python list (CC'd),
> I would like to listen the opinion from portmgr about the best naming of
> these ports, perhaps we need a regexp about "valid package name" in the
> porter's handbook?
> 
> Regards,
> Li-Wen
> 
> ----- Forwarded message from Li-Wen Hsu <lwhsu at FreeBSD.org> -----
> 
> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 18:50:45 +0800
> From: Li-Wen Hsu <lwhsu at FreeBSD.org>
> To: python at freebsd.org
> Subject: What's the perfered name for zope related modules?
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> I'm working on www/py-pyramid port, which needs some other zope ports to
> be added.  And I found we have following naming in the tree:
> 
>  - py-zopeInterface
>  - py-zope.exceptions
>  - py-zopetesting
> 
> From [1], first one is not suggested, though we have many in the tree.
> And I am not sure '.' would affect the other parts, but if it does,
> it should already caused problem since we have also ports like
> openoffice.org php-mode.el in tree.  If not, I like second one because
> third one could cause other naming conflicts.
> 
> Regards,
> Li-Wen
> 
> [1] http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/makefile-naming.html#PORTING-PKGNAME
> 
> -- 
> Li-Wen Hsu <lwhsu AT FreeBSD.org>
> http://lwhsu.org
> 
> 
> 
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> 

-- 
-- 
Pav Lucistnik <pav at oook.cz>
              <pav at FreeBSD.org>
Stupidity got us into this mess -- why can't it get us out?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-python/attachments/20110305/81c7ea60/attachment.pgp