On 13.07.2019 14:12, Greg Troxel wrote: > Mayuresh <mayuresh%acm.org@localhost> writes: > >> On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 10:28:48AM +0000, ng0%n0.is@localhost wrote: >>> devel/git: GIT version control suite (contains the full git) // or something like that >> >> Those who know git already are unlikely to read DESCR. I don't think that >> can be thought to be such a big mistake. > > It is a mistake not to read DESCR, if you are not happy with what > happens, and consider then having to read and uninstall a problem. > DESCR explains the point of the package, and it also explains, often, > which parts are in which package > >> Further, for many the git CLI is `full git'. I, for one, did not know >> there exists git beyond CLI. So, you may also elaborate what `full git' >> is, clearly saying go to git-base if you want only git CLI. > > It's good you learned about gitk. I am generally not a fan of the GUI > approach when command-line tools work. But, I find gitk hugely useful > for understanding the state of a git repository, whenever there are more > than a couple of branches in use. > > I really don't see how we can arrange things so that a large number of > people with different preconceived notions can guess correctly without > reading the dozen-line files provided to explain things to them. > A user that wants to install git (and nothing else) shall just type 'pkgin install git'. Right now git installs gitk and git documentation. If a git user (like me) would want to install them, he or she would search how gitk is named searching for it, like git-gitk or git-gui.. same for the documentation. The package name shall be obvious at the first sight and argument that DESCR is sufficient against user-friendliness. We could postulate to remove DESCR as checking PLIST or distfiles is always enough. I'm for renaming as devel/git is misnamed.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature