Curt Sampson <cjs@NetBSD.org> writes:

> Well, you can't install 3.2 with 3.1 installed, or vice versa. I have no
> idea what the bulk build system does in this case. What does it do if you
> mark packages with different names as conflicting?

It builds each, with only the prereqs installed.  So this is ok.

> My main concern about giving them all the same package name is whether
> there's any precedent for this. If there is, I'll do it, if not, at the
> very least I'd have to ask on tech-pkg, I would think.

There's tons.  foo and foo-devel often make foo-2.4.1 and foo-2.5.9.
Eg. gimp and gimp24 when gimp was 2.2.  quagga and quagga-devel.

>> Also, if you do 'pkg_add xentools' it'll take the one with the higher
>> version number. keepin 31 or 32 in the package name avoids this
>> problem.

yes, but you can give the number.

> True. But perhaps just a warning in DESCR and MESSAGE would be enough to
> alert users about what they're getting into? In fact, I think we want
> that warning either way.

DESCR should definitely explain what's normal, what's old, and what's
bleeding edge.

Really I don't think it matters much, but I lean towards the
xentools-3.2.x style if they inherently conflict since it's less manual
conflict recording.