Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2025 20:25:14 +0100 From: Lexi Winter <ivy@freebsd.org> To: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, dev-commits-src-all@freebsd.org, dev-commits-src-main@freebsd.org Subject: Re: git: 962876cc24ee - main - UPDATING: Note the Kerberos package rename (c7da9fb90b0b) Message-ID: <aIKImiqbMx_oAoZJ@freefall.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20250724190526.2F85A642@slippy.cwsent.com> References: <202507241824.56OIO88s005888@gitrepo.freebsd.org> <20250724190526.2F85A642@slippy.cwsent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--/cJljwJYtPl3uHOB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable hi Cy, Cy Schubert: > In message <202507241824.56OIO88s005888@gitrepo.freebsd.org>, Lexi Winter= =20 > writes: > > UPDATING: Note the Kerberos package rename (c7da9fb90b0b) =20 > Shouldn't this be the other way around? Heimdal is FreeBSD-kerberos while= =20 > MIT is FreeBSD-krb5. I objected to the name change because it could cause= =20 > people to assume they were one in the same. although i understand you objected to D51420, i landed it anyway[0] which means the packages are back to their old names and there are no more FreeBSD-krb5* packages. let me explain why i did this: - the change to the package names caused friction both inside the project (e.g., it broke the OCI build scripts) and outside the project (according to reports i received from downstream users). - it was not clear there is any advantage to renaming the packages. - due to above i was specifically asked to land this commit by several people, including a pkgbase maintainer, and one of my mentors at the time. - i considered this a reasonable course of action because this restored the previous status quo and undid a change that (as far as i'm aware) hadn't been reviewed by #pkgbase, so in case of doubt, i erred on the side of restoring the previous behaviour. i apologise for reverting your code over your stated objections but now that we are back to the previous behaviour, we can discuss whether to rename these packages, which i suggest doing via a Phabricator review that includes #pkgbase. [0] https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/commit/?id=3D4cb1baa7d85c1e227c4acfcc13a35= a9f1b7e5a44 --/cJljwJYtPl3uHOB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEABYKAB0WIQSyjTg96lp3RifySyn1nT63mIK/YAUCaIKIlgAKCRD1nT63mIK/ YHd3AP9A9or1MQmAL6n/VYyX5NNn3yuwvuz087fo9WbXvwDlwQD/fM9MorRnGPfX 2QZjPlmRJH1u6mkufCawdwSVDSU8RwU= =ZcJu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --/cJljwJYtPl3uHOB--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?aIKImiqbMx_oAoZJ>