Re: Window manager duplication (icewm, bb*)

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

Benny Siegert <bsiegert%gmail.com@localhost> writes:

> Why do we have wm/bbpager and wm/bbkeys in two versions? Also, unlike
> the guide says, the unversioned package is the _older_ one. Is anyone
> actually using these old versions, or can they go?

Without knowing anything, it's likely that long ago there was a reason
and now there isn't.

The guide is probably out of date.

We have moved (or I have pushed for) a mode where we either have a
single unversioned package (that gets updated, uneventfully) over very
long periods of time -- like 5 years, or we have only versioned
packages.  However, what usually happens is that there is an unversioned
package, and then upstream has a release that has some reason where we
can't just update and want to have multiple versions.  So often, to
avoid renaming, we e.g. leave the unversioned name foo at 2 and add
foo3.  Then, my preferred approach -- because renaming hurts too -- is
to let the older one be, but to consider the package to have become
"only versioned packages".  Once a package has had to be versioned, I
think it should stay versioned until there has been a 5-year history of
multiple releases with no need for having multiple versions around.

Perhaps we should accept the renaming pain as preferable to the pain of
having an older unversioned-sort-of-is-versioned package, and the
resulting pain of these discussions :-)

Also, if there are multiple versions, the DESCR should explain which is
old, stable, new, bleeding edge, etc.

I believe that others generally agree with my approach, but are vastly
less strict and/or rabid about it.

> And for IceWM, we have 1.2 as wm/icewm and 1.3 as wm/icewm13. I am
> about to add icewm14. Again, anyone actually using these older
> versions?

If icewm is such that there are good reasons to have the older versions
around, then adding icewm14 is the right thing to do.  Separately the
older ones can be deleted if there is no good reason for people to be
using them.

If icewm is such that you can say to anyone with a straight face "there
is no reason for you to just not run 1.4 and it's beyond lame of you to
want to run somethign older", then perhaps you should udpate the
unversioned name to 1.4 and at the same time delete 1.3.  But it that's
at all not palatable, that's a clue that icewm shoudl stay as
versoined-only for a lont time.