pkgsrc-Users archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: devel/git and devel/git-base are confusing

On 15.07.2019 15:46, Robert Elz wrote:
>     Date:        Mon, 15 Jul 2019 08:04:57 -0400
>     From:        Greg Troxel <>
>     Message-ID:  <>
> 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For the historical reference, git was already renamed.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

It was renamed to a better name after several complains from users.

The proposal to remove gitk from git dependencies does not rename anything.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index