On Nov 2, 2006, at 3:46 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
On Nov 2, 2006, at 4:37 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
What's the recommended way to handle this situation? Is it documented somewhere?
I don't think we have a fixed policy (and if we do, it was developed before we switched to subversion, so we didn't have svn mv available).
I would vote to just svn mv it and check in an updated portfile, but I could see where an argument could be made to make it easier for users who only do 'port upgrade' to know what is going on.
What about adding a ui_error message indicating that the old port has been renamed? Users would need to deactivate the old port before attempting to build or install the new one. Could that be somehow automated as a part of port upgrade? Chris