Re: Renaming of wip/dwb* [was: Empty PLIST for package wip/dwb33]

[Mateusz Poszwa <old4%o2.pl@localhost>]

Je 2015-05-20 19:52:54
Mateusz Poszwa <old4%o2.pl@localhost> skribis:

> Je 2015-05-20 10:38:37
> carsten.kunze%arcor.de@localhost skribis:
> 
> > Kamil Rytarowski <n54%gmx.com@localhost> wrote:
> > An:      carsten.kunze%arcor.de@localhost
> > Datum:   20.05.2015 04:54
> > Betreff: Re: Aw:  Aw:  Empty PLIST for package wip/dwb33
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 at 2:50 PM
> > > > From: carsten.kunze%arcor.de@localhost
> > > > To: n54%gmx.com@localhost
> > > > Cc: f8l%users.sourceforge.net@localhost, wiz%netbsd.org@localhost
> > > > Subject: Aw: Re: Aw:  Empty PLIST for package wip/dwb33
> > > >
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 at 4:09 PM
> > > > > > From: carsten.kunze%arcor.de@localhost
> > > > > > To: n54%gmx.com@localhost
> > > > > > Subject: Aw: Re: Empty PLIST for package wip/dwb33
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hey,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Bit off-topic, but there is wip/dwb under development (by f8l --
> > > > > Mateusz
> > > > > > > Poszwa).
> > > > > > > Maybe wip/dwb or wip/dwb33 should be renamed to remove confusion?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Renaming wip/dwb would IMHO not be a good idea since this package
> > > exists
> > > > > since a long time, also on other systems (with that name).  But
> > > actually
> > > > > selecting *this* name for this package had not been a good idea too
> > > since
> > > > > the name DWB is known for a very important UNIX software since around
> > > 1980. 
> > > > > So I would also not like to rename dwb33... ;)  Or do you have a good
> > > > > suggestion?  documentors_workbench is a bit long...  A had asked wiz@
> > > some
> > > > > time ago and he agreed with the name dwb33.  But now or never would be
> > > the
> > > > > right time for renaming it...
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Carsten
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I've added to the discussion f8l, hopefully his SF mail is right.
> > > > 
> > > > Ok.  I have also added Thomas.  As said a new name can be suggested if it
> > > is a suitable one.
> > > > (Please not that they are now both under wip/ but later dwb33 would be
> > > under textproc/ and dwb maybe under www/ so this would help a little bit.)
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Please hold on with import to pkgsrc. f8l is stuck with the webkit zoo and
> > > so far all of them failing with dwm.
> > > 
> > > My personal preference is to import wip/dwb33 as dwb and wip/dwb as
> > > dwm-browser, but please wait for the opinion from f8l.
> > 
> > I anyway do not have commit rights for pkgsrc (only for wip).  So I better forward the concerns to the list.
> > 
> > Except the possible renaming the package is now ready.
> 
> Hello.
> 
> Oh dear. I should’ve read all e-mails before replying. Sorry.
> I’ll just repeat what was not already suggested here.
> 
> In my opinion dwb-gtk3 is a good name for wip/dwb,
> as it can also be compiled against gtk2.
> To aid those who are looking for dwb the browser,
> maybe a text along lines of ‘If you are looking for
> a browser, see www/dwb-…’ could be placed in DESC
> file of dwb33. I’m not sure if such practice is allowed
> in pkgsrc though.
> 
> Happy Hacking!

I have moved dwb to dwb-gtk2.
You can now rename dwb33 to dwb, DWB, or whatever is appropriate.
Unfortunately, CVS is going to get confused about the history,
but I was told it is not a grave problem in wip.
I guess there are three dwb* packages to be reviewed now. ☺

-- 
Mateusz Poszwa