Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/lang

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

nia <nia%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes:

> On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 09:40:52AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> Agreed.  We have a longstanding convention of foo and foo-bin.  When I
>> saw about rust-bin I assumed that it made a rust-bin package.
>
> Those packages typically use linux emulation, this one doesn't,

Some do, and perhaps some don't.  THis is about -bin, not about -linux.

> so has no meaningful difference in functionality, just in who built it
> and how, which I don't think matters to users of binary packages.
>
> It makes no difference whether you `pkgin install rust` or `rust-bin`,
> except if 'pkgin install rust' doesn't work...

Joerg has a good point.  I don't see why you want to prevent both from
being built, if they work, and available, by reusing the package name.
Why do you think it's important to have a colliding package name?
Surely RUST_TYPE leads or should lead to depending on one or the other,
just like ghostscript-gpl and ghostscript-agpl.  Those are two packages
that purport to do the same thing, modulo bugs and licenses.   I can
believe that the differences here are smaller, but I don't think that
affects the point.