D'Arcy Cain <darcy%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes: > I would like to upgrade Radicale from version 1.1.1 to 2.1.0 and I > have a few questions. > > Is there any point in renaming the current version as Radicale1 and > creating a new Radicale? Generally, we have multiple versions only when expecting someone to upgrade when the pkgsrc versions is updated is unreasonable, and this is usually a sign of either not having source/binary compatibility leading to users needing to use one or the other depending (most) or complicated on-disk formats (postgresql, probably mysql). My view, and I'm unclear how widely shared it is, is that packages should either be unsuffixed and a single version, for packages where that is expected to be a reasonable situation over the long term, or all suffixed with one or more at any time, for packages where it cannot be reasonably expected to stick to a single version for many years. Obviously this is messier than that. So if you think users need both, I suggest Radicale1 and Radicale2, assuming 2.1 and 2.0 are more or less the same and Radicale2.2 will be more or less the same and Radicale2 will be updated to 2.2 when it happens. And, if it's a dependency rather than an end package, try to make them parallel-installable, so two programs that need each can work at the same time. guileN does this (but it's extra work). This always-suffixed notion avoids renaming as versions become normal and not. Users have to manually upgrade, but that's arguably a feature for things where just getting upgraded is not ok.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature