Re: Renaming www/vimb to www/vimb2 and importing wip/vimb3 as www/vimb

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

Leonardo Taccari <leot%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes:

> If there are no (negative) feedbacks in a week or so I would like
> to rename www/vimb package to www/vimb2 and rename its binary, man
> page and share directory to vimb2 (instead of vimb).

Do you really need to support having them both installed at once?  Most
multi-version packages like this just conflict with each other, unless
they are things that others depend on.

> After that I would like to import wip/vimb3 as www/vimb and install
> it as vimb (like upstream).

If so, please call the package www/vimb3.  (The binary being vimb is
fine.)  Once a package needs multiple versions, that's a clue that
upstream is behaving in a way that it's likely to continue for a long
time, and renaming hurts.  So we have a norm (or at least a common gdt
rant) about only having versioned names once a package needs to be
versioned, until it's really clear (no need for 5 years :-) that a
single version is and will continue to be ok.

> The rationale is: vimb-2.12 is EOL and depends on webkit24-gtk that
> is EOL too. However, at least recently on the mailing lists IIRC
> there were some users of it so I think it would be better to not
> remove it.

You could also demote it to wip/vmb2 and just update vimb 3.  That's
what I would do, absent a compelling argument that significant numbers
of people need to run the older version because just upgrading causes
some kind of trouble.

You say there "are users", but will these people have a bad time if it
just gets upgraded?  Every time a package is updated to a new version,
there are almost certaily users of the old one - but that's almost
always ok.

The real question here is if the people  that don't want 3 are just not
coping like they should, or if there is something wrong with the upgrade
path where that's a reasonable position.