"port lint" informs me that there isn't a category php: $ sudo port lint pear-base ---> Verifying Portfile for pear-base Error: Unknown category: php ---> 1 errors and 0 warnings found. $ But these ports want to be in that category: $ grep php */*/Portfile | grep categories www/mediawiki/Portfile:categories www php www/pear-base/Portfile:categories www php lang www/php4/Portfile:categories lang php www www/php5-devel/Portfile:categories lang php www www/php5/Portfile:categories lang php www www/phpbb/Portfile:categories www php www/phpicalendar/Portfile:categories www php www/phpmyadmin/Portfile:categories php www databases www/squirrelmail/Portfile:categories www mail php x11/php5-gtk/Portfile:categories x11 lang php www $ I presume we should remove "php" from the categories of each of these ports? I don't see why we would need a "php" category. The php software itself is a language that's often used for web sites, so "lang" and "www" are good categories. And webapps developed with php belong in "www"; nobody should care what language they were made with.
On 24.10.2007, at 10.30, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
I presume we should remove "php" from the categories of each of these ports? I don't see why we would need a "php" category. The php software itself is a language that's often used for web sites, so "lang" and "www" are good categories. And webapps developed with php belong in "www"; nobody should care what language they were made with.
+1 from me. ! ! Jyrki Wahlstedt ! http://www.wahlstedt.fi/jyrki/ ! ! Our life is no dream; but it ought to become one and perhaps will. ! PGP key ID: 0x139CC386 fingerprint: F355 B46F 026C B8C1 89C0 A780 6366 EFD9 139C C386
On 24 Oct 2007, at 03:30, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
I presume we should remove "php" from the categories of each of these ports? I don't see why we would need a "php" category. The php software itself is a language that's often used for web sites, so "lang" and "www" are good categories. And webapps developed with php belong in "www"; nobody should care what language they were made with.
Removing this category is a bad idea. The only requirement with regard to categories that I am aware of is that a port be in a category in the dports tree so that PortIndex can find it. While it makes sense that portlint should issue warnings about categories that don't exist (was the category a typo?), portlint in this case should not drive behavior (unless, of course, the category was a typo like (for example: gnmoe instead of gnome). There are 72 categories listed on http://apollo.homeunix.net/macports/ ports.php as of 24-Oct-2007 19:07:22 but only 42 category directories in the port tree[1]. As I have advocated earlier[2], we should begin thinking about categories not as physical bins to stick ports into (especially since many ports have more than one category listed for the port and there are 30 categories that do not really exist), but as tags in a taxonomy of ports (admittedly a very flat one, but a taxonomy nonetheless) that may or may not assist users in finding that particular port that solves their particular problem. If portlint really needs to be shut up about this, perhaps doing something like having portlint check against a list of "virtual" categories in a file would work... [1] https://svn.macosforge.org/projects/macports/browser/trunk/dports [2] http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2007-August/ 002560.html Randall Wood rhwood@mac.com http://shyramblings.blogspot.com "The rules are simple: The ball is round. The game lasts 90 minutes. All the rest is just philosophy."
Randall Wood wrote:
The only requirement with regard to categories that I am aware of is that a port be in a category in the dports tree so that PortIndex can find it. While it makes sense that portlint should issue warnings about categories that don't exist (was the category a typo?), portlint in this case should not drive behavior (unless, of course, the category was a typo like (for example: gnmoe instead of gnome).
port lint should probably just check the primary category... (at least that's the only ones that are in the list it knows) --anders
On Oct 25, 2007, at 05:15, Anders F Björklund wrote:
Randall Wood wrote:
The only requirement with regard to categories that I am aware of is that a port be in a category in the dports tree so that PortIndex can find it. While it makes sense that portlint should issue warnings about categories that don't exist (was the category a typo?), portlint in this case should not drive behavior (unless, of course, the category was a typo like (for example: gnmoe instead of gnome).
port lint should probably just check the primary category... (at least that's the only ones that are in the list it knows)
Maybe port lint should just check that the first category listed matches the directory the portfile is actually in? So, for example, it would warn about the php5 port, whose port directory lives in the www directory, but the portfile defines the categories as "lang php www". Presumably that should instead be "www php lang". Or what did you mean by "primary category"?
On 25 Oct 2007, at 06:21, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Oct 25, 2007, at 05:15, Anders F Björklund wrote:
Randall Wood wrote:
The only requirement with regard to categories that I am aware of is that a port be in a category in the dports tree so that PortIndex can find it. While it makes sense that portlint should issue warnings about categories that don't exist (was the category a typo?), portlint in this case should not drive behavior (unless, of course, the category was a typo like (for example: gnmoe instead of gnome).
port lint should probably just check the primary category... (at least that's the only ones that are in the list it knows)
Maybe port lint should just check that the first category listed matches the directory the portfile is actually in? So, for example, it would warn about the php5 port, whose port directory lives in the www directory, but the portfile defines the categories as "lang php www". Presumably that should instead be "www php lang".
Or what did you mean by "primary category"?
I meant the category that the port lives in. Randall Wood rhwood@mac.com http://shyramblings.blogspot.com "The rules are simple: The ball is round. The game lasts 90 minutes. All the rest is just philosophy."
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
port lint should probably just check the primary category... (at least that's the only ones that are in the list it knows)
Maybe port lint should just check that the first category listed matches the directory the portfile is actually in? So, for example, it would warn about the php5 port, whose port directory lives in the www directory, but the portfile defines the categories as "lang php www". Presumably that should instead be "www php lang".
Or what did you mean by "primary category"?
"First", which should be the same as the directory in which it is stored. It's just that the Portfile is supposed to be able to come from things other than a regular file, so I'm a little sceptic at adding more hacks which assume that it is. Then again, a) it already does assume a great deal about Portfile being a regular file anyway and b) building directly from a .portpkg or a database is probably lightyears away anyhow... --anders
On Oct 25, 2007, at 05:34, Anders F Björklund wrote:
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
port lint should probably just check the primary category... (at least that's the only ones that are in the list it knows)
Maybe port lint should just check that the first category listed matches the directory the portfile is actually in? So, for example, it would warn about the php5 port, whose port directory lives in the www directory, but the portfile defines the categories as "lang php www". Presumably that should instead be "www php lang".
Or what did you mean by "primary category"?
"First", which should be the same as the directory in which it is stored. It's just that the Portfile is supposed to be able to come from things other than a regular file, so I'm a little sceptic at adding more hacks which assume that it is. Then again, a) it already does assume a great deal about Portfile being a regular file anyway and b) building directly from a .portpkg or a database is probably lightyears away anyhow...
Hmm. I've been on these MacPorts lists for a couple years and this is the first I've heard of a portfile not being a file. Pardon the simple question, but what else could it be? :)
participants (4)
-
Anders F Björklund
-
Jyrki Wahlstedt
-
Randall Wood
-
Ryan Schmidt