Re: Update of goffice0.10 and gnumeric112?

[Havard Eidnes <he%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

>> can anyone come up with a good reason why I should not commit an
>> update to goffice0.10-0.10.21 and gnumeric112-1.12.21?
>>
>> (Yes, there are newer versions out, these are just the updates I
>> had lying around uncommitted for a while...)
>
> If you understand, it would be nice to update the DESCR of the three
> gnumeric packages to explain which ones are old, which ones mainstream
> and which ones bleeding edge.  And perhaps also the file compatibility
> rules.  It is not clear to me why we have three versions; usually that's
> because there is a reason for people to run the old ones.

It's not entirely clear to me either why we have three versions in
pkgsrc.  The 1.12 series depends on gtk+ 3, and is dual-licensed
either gpl2 or gpl3.

Reading the "release series" announcements doesn't make me think
there's any incompatibilities in file format, save for the addition of
various new functions in 1.10.

The 1.12 series is up to release #23 now, so it should have been
approaching maturity already.  They seem to follow the Linux "odd
numbers are development" release numbering convention, so 1.9.x was a
development release series.

I'll take a look at the DESCR of the packages if we decide to keep all
three for now.

Though ... it is perhaps a little odd that the package in the gnumeric
directory is the oldest of the three; perhaps it ought to instead be
renamed into gnumeric18, and gnumeric112 should take its place?  A
nudge to upgrade?

Regards,

- Håvard