Re: wip/iverilog

[Kamil Rytarowski <n54%gmx.com@localhost>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 13.12.2015 16:22, Greg Troxel wrote:
> 
> Kamil Rytarowski <n54%gmx.com@localhost> writes:
> 
>> My proposition is to upgrade pkgsrc version with Icarus Verilog
>> from wip/iverilog and optionally pull in modifications from 
>> wip/verilog-current.
> 
> You straightening out all the patches, filing them with upstream, 
> etc. is of course most welcome.
> 
> Presumably you have already checked in with the MAINTAINER before 
> embarking on this?
> 

I checked that Makoto was the person in recent years who contributed
changes to it. He's addressee of this mail too. So called
verilog-current from pkgsrc is 6 years old.

And since I don't understand local modifications (there are no
comments why we are doing what we do), I leave the rest to the maintaine
r.

>> Do we need 4 packages with the same tool, but different name? Can
>> we obsolete them and stick to stable and optionally -git
>> version?
> 
> Since this seems to be a single upstream, I don't see any reason
> for more than one package with a release (in pkgsrc proper) and a
> snapshot one (perhaps in wip, since we tend to avoid other than
> releases in pkgsrc).
> 
>> Can we stick to new iverilog name? For me 'verilog' is like name 
>> 'editor' for an editor.
> 
> As for the name, I see your point about 'verilog' properly being
> the name of a language, not a program, but the upstream tarball is
> called verilog- and unpacks to that.  Plus it's been that way
> forever and has not generated complaints.
> 

Since I took tarball from GitHub the tarball is iverilog for me. I was
surprised that 'verilog' might be the same thing.

> I don't follow "stick with"; the precedent is "verilog", so any
> proposal for a change is just that.  Generally I view changes as
> having a cost and tend to avoid them (cvs history, updating, etc.).
> All in all I would leave the package as verilog because that's the
> upstream tarball name.  You could file a bug asking them to change
> it to icarus-verilog or iverilog and we could of course follow
> suit.
> 
> But if you're going to take care of this, I don't object - that's
> just my graybeard rant.
> 

My proposition comes from the fact that pkgsrc one is outdated and
unlikely actively maintained (and used?). Otherwise I wouldn't come
with this thought.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWbZ+CAAoJEEuzCOmwLnZsTTQP/2UJSgTvP3ONLdWzPlDrwKiM
EzZ24Or/gF7h/EWXtIGwGE2LFO41UgeMH36NEc31UpclzUReQ3vPwW9XIZQr50Dp
jr5ofqoNfqCRdqdW0pFEcnTEYpgFabWbx3VOxUjOyBwVjov1iikAZSxj0ieikeae
TrAtI9LeSmrbg0IFkv62OVkBrmi01rQWPUngKMK+qqYwrju2VlurnQk2qV0mhbBH
UHAaDYWmAcqkeBTvdIS8SJ05ufNq7FLA1OFBEA1lhWzHWA9MMBqovYY+qMy6VM1J
KVNhw25uCIdZro9PGF7BYgDFJqyIo5aeVRR6RwBqsDdwUSuK9UwjuUHGLjxPMAj9
Yym4bKA12VB5u1gJICxmZtiANI6MLEDVvaNPNSXqqHtbQTi1+rzQaiYHC9OVT97n
bSlHoSoctyDcuETjcuVJ5E5suKd6AQTbl7E1bB/pBqsRn76AuyNh6Oe/i5U5pguY
0qxq/unpNyAkyLpe+NUZZBfmyieHU90thGByx8g3hnZ5cd1o//ux1ytwQZTWih58
ao7DL6sCyymh8nz4wFAvKD4zv0uWDnxr5HnzBnjv+/krT0UNbIbhg44aP/HFLgUV
8VOYLAj/jTQXY7yZmaG7oGqv+aDLYOwlxKk/W8NeTPW/QTBj1n+W2ZoeJPXqNRQD
5lUL0ZIBKYd6p/puofW0
=m9wh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----