Aleksej Saushev <asau%inbox.ru@localhost> writes: > Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes: > >> We have gramps3 in pkgsrc, so I don't have problems with removing >> these two. > > It would be really nice to have consistent style in pkgsrc for these > cases. > > In particular, some packages follow the convention of "pkgname" is the > latest version, "pkgnamesuffix" is some alternative version, other > packages provide "pkgname" as version 1, "pkgname2" as version like in > this case. I understand that for some software this may not work nice, > and package always has a version, but could we agree on some generic > convention? If we follow such convention the proposal like "lets' > remove databases/gramps" wouldn't start questions since it would be > clear that it is some alternative version to be removed. I see where you are coming from, but IMHO the basic issues are that 1) software which has enough compatibility issues that "just update" is not a sane strategy needs to be versioned, and 2) pkgsrc has an awkward time with renamed packages, so if a particular package needs to have multiple versions, then I think it's best to have foo1, foo2, foo3. This is particularly true when for a while foo2 is stable and foo3 flaky, and then either is reasonable, and then foo2 is somewhat crufty and foo3 normal, and then foo2 is really crufty and foo3 normal, about when foo4 appears and is bleeding edge. So I guess in the end I agree with your "would be nice to be consistent" notion, and arrive at either: there's no need to have multiple versions, and we just have one, with no suffix, or there is a need, and every copy of a package in pkgsrc has a version so python is in good graces, guile is not (guile is 1.8, guile14 exists), emacs is not. But, the special case of package with no suffix is the latest stable, and suffixes are old versions seems reasonable as well. And after adding that, we have arrived, more or less, at the current state, so I'm not sure what you want to change.
Description: PGP signature