Re: [PATCH] ham/chirp update

[Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012%yahoo.com@localhost>]

On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 23:53, Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost> wrote:
>
> Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012%yahoo.com@localhost> writes:
>
> > What you say makes sense in principle, but in the case of chirp,
> > upstream have decided they are going to release their packages as
> > chirp-daily. I think the OP's approach probably makes more sense.
> >
> > From: https://chirp.danplanet.com/projects/chirp/wiki/Download
> >
> > "you do not need to worry about finding a stable version to run. You
> > should always be on the latest build available."
>
> I didn't mean to say we should definitel not package their snapshots.
>
> But still, at:
>
>   https://chirp.danplanet.com/projects/chirp/news
>
> the latest news is "0.4.1 is released".  So upstream should resolve
> their inconsistency issues.
>
> I still think we should call it chirp-devel, so as not to pretend that
> upstream follows release norms when they do not.
>

Yes, that news is from 6 years ago and upstream are not bothered
updating the page.

I haven't used chirp lately but I'm a ham and I know there have been
new radio models in the last 6 years. For me, it just doesn't make
sense to have such a piece of software pointing at such an old release
that would potentially miss tens of new radio models.

I'm ok with renaming the package to chirp-devel or similar, but IMHO
this should be the first package one should use. But I do understand
this would be a pain for whoever maintains the pkgsrc package.

Incidentally, the limitation of pkgsrc is that it expects that
upstream mark their releases as stable/devel, which is not the case
for chirp and is becoming unfortunately more and more common.

-- 
Ottavio Caruso