port "cask" -- installing prebuilt binaries

[Herby G]

> If we decide to go ahead with this, and if we decide to primarily use a
category to mark these, we will need a plan for how to manage a name
collision conflict when there are two ports that install the same software,
one by building from source (on newer systems) and one by installing a
binary (on older systems).

Unless I am misunderstanding, I think that question is answered by what is
our current policy today for that?

We are discussing ports just like any other, they just have an additional
category ("binary" or "binary_only").

The question of conflict could still arise even if I were discussing two
other ports, one in the "sysutils" category, and one in the "net" category.

This does not introduce any new mechanism or concept that does not already
currently exist in MacPorts.

On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 5:04 PM Ken Cunningham <
ken.cunningham.webuse at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Aug 6, 2020, at 12:28 PM, Herby G <herby.gillot at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > so far, name-suffix is winning on all fronts...with no downsides yet.
>
> I don't plan on pushing the issue, but I have to say that I don't agree.
>
> Using a name suffix isn't clean, as you may include other non-binary ports
> that may happen to have the word "binary" in their name.
>
> A category allows you a cleaner approach as you can now represent that a
> port is binary as an _attribute_ of the port, rather than overloading the
> name.
>
> This will make it easier to write port utilities and commands that target
> binary ports.
>
> We can easily add an alias that could let you do things like "port -v
> binary_only" which would transparently do the "category:binary".
>
> Additionally, if using a category, you can see the list of binary ports in
> a clean way when browsing ports in the MacPorts website, it makes it easier
> to do things like add an icon to signify binary only if a given port is in
> the "binary" category, and not make possibly mistaken assumptions off of
> the name.
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 3:02 PM Ken Cunningham <
> ken.cunningham.webuse at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> category-only identifier is
>>
>> less clear and less obvious
>> harder to remember how to search for
>> name conflicts with a non-binary version (eg for newer systems that can
>> build it)
>>
>> so far, name-suffix is winning on all fronts...with no downsides yet.
>>
>> K
>
>
>
> If we decide to go ahead with this, and if we decide to primarily use a
> category to mark these, we will need a plan for how to manage a name
> collision conflict when there are two ports that install the same software,
> one by building from source (on newer systems) and one by installing a
> binary (on older systems).
>
> I would suggest the binary install version of the port be called
> “portname_binary” unless someone has a better idea for how to manage this
> issue.
>
> Ken
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20200806/30676c1c/attachment-0001.htm>