Re: s/getmail/getmail6 before freeze (package superseding)

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

Benny Siegert <bsiegert%gmail.com@localhost> writes:

> Am 30.08.25 um 19:38 schrieb Hisashi T Fujinaka:
>> I was a getmail user and I never could get getmail6 to work correctly. I
>> had to switch to imapsync to get rid of python2.
>> On Sat, 30 Aug 2025, Jean-Yves Migeon (NetBSD) wrote:
>> 
>>> Greetings everyone,
>>>
>>> Freeze approaching, I would like to migrate our current
>>> mail/getmail to -6 fork, as this version supports python 3.
>
> Why now? Is there anything in particular that prompts this? If we have
> version 5 and 6 now, and 6 doesn't work for everyone, I think I would
> prefer for the removal to happen after the branch.

I don't know about getmail but:

  In theory when we have multiversion packages, we have fooX and fooY,
  so there's less confusion.  So renaming getmail to getmail5 should be
  considered, keeping in mind the cost of disruption.

  When we have a reason to have multiple packages, we stay at versioned
  names for a while, until we're sure we don't need to go back.  Needing
  multiple versions is a sign of an unhealthy upstream (or the larger
  community), but that's normal.  Perhaps this upstream was unhealthy
  and there's a new healthy upstream and this situation can reasonably
  be expected to continue.

  This seems like a removal proposal (to drop getmail5), and those
  belong on pkgsrc-users title as such.

  It's not clear to me if anybody actually wants to run getmail5.   Part
  of the removal proposal would include an argument that there aren't
  any users, or that the pain of maintenance (which seems near zero)
  outweighs the # users.

  If getmail(5) is unmaintained upstream, the DESCR should note this.