Kamil Rytarowski <n54%gmx.com@localhost> writes: > My proposition is to upgrade pkgsrc version with Icarus Verilog from > wip/iverilog and optionally pull in modifications from > wip/verilog-current. You straightening out all the patches, filing them with upstream, etc. is of course most welcome. Presumably you have already checked in with the MAINTAINER before embarking on this? > Do we need 4 packages with the same tool, but different name? Can we > obsolete them and stick to stable and optionally -git version? Since this seems to be a single upstream, I don't see any reason for more than one package with a release (in pkgsrc proper) and a snapshot one (perhaps in wip, since we tend to avoid other than releases in pkgsrc). > Can we stick to new iverilog name? For me 'verilog' is like name > 'editor' for an editor. As for the name, I see your point about 'verilog' properly being the name of a language, not a program, but the upstream tarball is called verilog- and unpacks to that. Plus it's been that way forever and has not generated complaints. I don't follow "stick with"; the precedent is "verilog", so any proposal for a change is just that. Generally I view changes as having a cost and tend to avoid them (cvs history, updating, etc.). All in all I would leave the package as verilog because that's the upstream tarball name. You could file a bug asking them to change it to icarus-verilog or iverilog and we could of course follow suit. But if you're going to take care of this, I don't object - that's just my graybeard rant.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature