Subject: Re: difficulty from renaming packages, and how to deal
To: None <tech-pkg@NetBSD.org>
From: Greg Troxel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/07/2007 14:29:20
Bernd Ernesti <email@example.com> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 01:01:42PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> Bernd Ernesti <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> > P.S. Huberts reply seems to fit better as a solution for the orginal topic.
>> So are you suggesting that the "Removed" entry for gimp24 should say
>> Renamed graphics/gimp24 to graphics/gimp
>> even though it was removed, and graphics/gimp not changed during the
> No, not in this case. gimp24 was in my eyes a very very very very wrong
> package name, which caused me more then once to install a -devel version
> instead of the release one which I wanted.
If it were gimp-devel instead we would have the exact same naming issue.
> In this case gimp was updated to 2.4 and gimp24 (which was 2.3.x and not
> 2.4) was removed afterwards.
> It should be used when we rename a package, like when the 2 was removed
> at the end of a lot of packages a few weeks ago.
Sure, and there are a bunch of Renamed entries, and I wasn't (now)
proposing to change them.
But the question on the table is: for "Removed" packages that have a
logical successor, should that be noted on the Removed line?
Do you object to that?