Re: fish shell versioning

[Paolo Vincenzo Olivo <vins%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On 25/12/13 09:45AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
> 
> Having foo and fooN is bad, as it is not immediately obvious which is
> which and why.  We end up there when a package transitions from "the
> latest version is ok for everybody so we have one" to "the package has
> made troubling decisions and there are reasons why the latest version
> isn't ok".  You may point out that fooN and fooM also are somewhat
> difficult to interpret, but IMHO the risk of confusion is much lower, as
> people should take that as a clue to read foo*/DESCR.
> 
> While there's generally a bias against renaming, moving fish to fish3
> seems reasonable.
> 
> However, the most important step is easy and seems not to have
> happened: reading DESCR of both does not explain any of this.   A simple
> "This is the current release.  It is implemented in rust and thus not
> available on all platforms." and "This is a previous release which is no
> longer maintained.  It is, however, available on platforms not supported
> by rust." would do wonders for  understanding
> 

So, I went down this route, moved the packages as stated above and
updated the DESCRs. We now have:

* shells/fish3: old version 
* shell/fish: the new rust based one.

I think we can keep fish3 as long as a build failure or a bug doesn't
come up.

Regards,
Paolo