On 15.07.2019 15:46, Robert Elz wrote: > Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 08:04:57 -0400 > From: Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost> > Message-ID: <rmizhlfec5y.fsf%s1.lexort.com@localhost> > > First, I simply cannot imagine anyone installing a package without > having any idea what it does, and that's what the DESCR is for (guessing > at what a package is based solely on its name is foolish in the extreme). > > The one exception is packages installed as dependencies - and then if > you're getting the wrong thing, the issue is with the package that > requested it, not with the name of the package itself. > > If you don't read the DESCR of a package you are about to install, and > you don't end up with what you wanted, but with something different, the > problem is with you (whoever "you" are) and not at all with pkgsrc. > git is so widely known software that virtually every person using pkgsrc knows what it is without consulting DESCR. DESCR is good for learning some new piece of software. I don't know whether there are e.g. users checking DESCR when installing e.g. bash. The bug is to push into mouth of users gitk, when they ask pkgin to install git. > | OK, that's one vote [...] > > My vote would be to remove git from pkgsrc entirely, but I don't think > that's likely to be a popular opinion... > > Beyond that, you can count me as a very strong vote against ever renaming > anything (publicly visible) that has been around more than a couple of > weeks - however bad the name is, the pain and confusion caused by renaming > (and I mean the impact upon the users, not any technical issues with how > renaming is done) is almost always worse than simply having the "wrong" > name (in someone's opinion.) (Something imported with a poor name > can be removed and imported again with a better one - if it is done > promptly - almost no-one will have noticed, and those that did are > obviously paying attention.) > > So, if the option is to simply remove one of git's add-ons as useless > (or too big to be worth it) then I simply don't care. On the other hand > if the plan would be to keep the current package but with a different name > (any different name) and make the package with the existing name be different > than it is now, then I object. Leave it as it is. > > kre > For the historical reference, git was already renamed. It was imported as scmgit 11 years ago and 5 years ago renamed to git(-base)... after 6 years. It was renamed to a better name after several complains from users. The proposal to remove gitk from git dependencies does not rename anything.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature