Re: Removal of devel/got, replaced by devel/got-portable

[Ryo ONODERA <ryo%tetera.org@localhost>]

Hi,

Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost> writes:

> Paolo Vincenzo Olivo <vins%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes:
>
>> On 24/01/28 02:29PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
>>> 
>>>   what is upstream's preferred name?
>>
>> Upstream either refers to it as "the portable version of Game of
>> Trees" or as "got-portable" [1]. This is not consistent with the usual
>> habit of OpenBSD devs to name the portable release of an utility "foo"
>> as "<open>foo".  OpenBSD ports have GoT in their repo as devel/got and
>> as a consequence all other distributions have named the package simply
>> "got" [2]. In my opinion, to avoid confusion, it would be better to
>> conform to the choice of other software distributions and name the
>> package devel/got.
>
> That makes a lot of sense.
>
>>>   what is the % of users who have one vs the other (of the set that have
>>>   both)
>>
>> I know of a handful of users having devel/got-portable installed on
>> their system. Some asked me about the difference between got and
>> got-portable, and the only real difference for NetBSD users is that
>> devel/got is stuck at version 0.48, while upstream GoT currently reached
>> 0.95 (devel/got-portable is up to date).
>
> Sounds like set set that has either is very small, so steering to
> eventual cleanliness seems the higher value.  So I land with bsiegert at
> devel/got, which is what I think you want, so that's 3 to 0 :-).  (speaking
> as just a pkgsrc member)

I think that devel/got should be replaced with devel/got-portable
including MAINTAINERship.

Thank you.

-- 
Ryo ONODERA // ryo%tetera.org@localhost
PGP fingerprint = 82A2 DC91 76E0 A10A 8ABB  FD1B F404 27FA C7D1 15F3