Re: Math/udunits update

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

Brook Milligan <brook%nmsu.edu@localhost> writes:

> [description]

As I read this, udunits2 is sort of the logical successor to udunits1,
but it's not clear if they are retroactively renaming udunits to
udunits-1, as oppposed to it just being version 1.  Actually it feels
like they are being loose in changing case and putting hyphens in, vs
having a number in the package name - because they probably don't think
like we do in terms of naming.

There's also a question of what the future holds; they seem to have
broken compat from 1 to 2, and also chosen new names.  So perhaps they
intend that people can install both.

> - Make a new udunits2 package and leave udunits as is at v1.

That seems ok.  It seems that upstream package names really are
"udunits" and "udunits2", if you judge them by what they put in bin.
Also we have a "one only, has been one only, and expected to be like
that always" or "all versioned, even if one this minute" norm, so this
is off being udunits vs udunits1, but we also avoid renaming.

> - Update udunits to v2 and abandon udunits v1

[I split your list because you had three options in 2 bullet points!]

That seems ok, if the 2 packages that depend on it are ok with that, and
you expect that in the pkgsrc world nobody else uses that.  If the
upstream vibe is that udunits2 is the way of the future and 1 is just
something to migrate away from, this seems like a good plan.

> - Update udunits to v2 and add udunits1.

That seems ok, if people need 1; it's basically the same as your first
option but renaming the old package to 1 so it's clearer.  Hard call on
what's the least total pain over all people.

> Given the last statement about grams v. gravity I’m not sure which way to go.  Suggestions welcome.

What do the upstreams of the depending packages say about which should
be used?

What's driving you to want udunits2?

Do you think there would be any pain if you just update and revbump the
dependencies?