Differential D14762
New Port: www/nginx-passenger Authored by joneum on Mar 19 2018, 9:27 PM. Tags None Referenced Files
Details This is a copy from www/rubygem-passenger. New Port: www/nginx-passenger Passenger are Apache and nginx modules allowing for simple deployment
Diff Detail
Event TimelineComment Actions What is the benefit of this over what we already have? And you can't remove the Created By line if you changed so little. Comment Actions This one is for nginx. The original is for nginx-devel. Comment Actions So the situation will be that if I pkg install rubygem-passenger-nginx I get the devel version, which is 5.1.12 and if I pkg install nginx-passenger I get 5.2.1 which is not the devel version, but is a higher version number, is that correct? It seems quite confusing. Comment Actions I have no idear what you mean with "rubygem-passenger-nginx" For nginx i will create nginx-passanger and bump the Portversion of both at 5.2.1 - so i can Maintain this to Ports. Understandable? Comment Actions www/rubygem-passenger is the port you are copying from, correct? It produces two packages, one is rubygem-passenger-apache-5.1.12_2.txz, the other is rubygem-passenger-nginx-5.1.12_2.txz. See the package list for example. Comment Actions I assumed they misunderstood the port name. Was my explanation understandable for you? Comment Actions Sorry, who is "they"?
Sorry, no, I don't understand. If the goal is to have a package of passenger for nginx, we already have that. If the goal is to have a newer package of passenger for nginx, shouldn't we update www/rubygem-passenger? Or if we want to have the old and the new version, shouldn't we have www/rubygem-passenger-devel? Comment Actions Ok, again for you: I have nginx and in the future nginx-passenger. I will maintain and update this after my assessment. Comment Actions What is the goal of this new nginx-passenger port that rubygem-passenger doesn't already provide? Comment Actions So the goal is just to have another copy of the same thing with a different maintainer, right? Comment Actions For newer versions, we typically update an existing port. Or if we want to have multiple versions at the same time, we create a copy with a -devel name or a version string suffix. Comment Actions To me, it's confusing to users. The existing www/rubygem-passenger port produces two packages, rubygem-passenger-nginx and rubygem-passenger-apache. This will produce nginx-passenger-nginx and nginx-passenger-apache. Does this not seem confusing to you? Comment Actions I consider a package named nginx-passenger-apache pretty non-sensical, and I think I would be remiss in my duties as portmgr if I allowed that. Comment Actions I ask her again: which RULES contradict here? Comment Actions @joneum, I think @swills makes a valid point -- it's a confusing name, I can see what you want to say with the port name, but it's if you just see nginx-foo-apache on its own, it's a bit of a head-scratcher. Maybe try
Can't you not work together with @osa to just keep one and only one www/rubygems-passenger port around at a sensible version working for the both of you? Comment Actions It is tedious to write a PR with every change since one of the ports does not belong. For this purpose, the NGINX is currently being revised: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D14773 I would like to know which rules are not respected here, if already threatened with portmgr. I will remove the Apache modules from the port and then publish it only for NGINX Comment Actions I do not understand what this port is for. This is an exact copy of the current rubygem-passenger without any other change than the version. It would be better to update the port we already have. |