From: Paul Galbraith <paul@galbraiths.ca>
Subject: Re: [NEW] net/b2
To: Abel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda <acamari@verlet.org>, A Tammy <openbsd.ports@aisha.cc>, ports@openbsd.org
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 16:23:04 -0400

Yep I agree completely, I'm taking a stab at this at this very moment as 
a matter of fact.

On 2024-07-29 4:21 p.m., Abel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 5:22 PM Kirill A. Korinsky <kirill@korins.ky> 
> wrote:
>
>     diff --git sysutils/b2/pkg/PLIST sysutils/b2/pkg/PLIST
>     index e910ea53f53..5bd3b06e2fe 100644
>     --- sysutils/b2/pkg/PLIST
>     +++ sysutils/b2/pkg/PLIST
>     @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
>     +@conflict boost-*
>      bin/b2
>      bin/b2v3
>      bin/b2v4
>
>     and, finally, added a conflict with boost. Both port contains
>     /usr/local/bin/b2 but such conflict makes installing it quite
>     tricky because
>     a bit less than 200 ports depends on devel/boost.
>
>
> I'd be OK if we rename b2 in this port to something else...
>
> In debian they seem to rename the binary b2 -> backblaze-b2, according to:
>
> https://packages.debian.org/bookworm/all/backblaze-b2/filelist
>
> So, maybe a lot of people don't depend on that name on their scripts...
>
> Thoughts?