Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 16:59:05 +0200 From: Emanuel Haupt <ehaupt@FreeBSD.org> To: Mathieu Arnold <mat@freebsd.org> Cc: Hiroki Tagato <tagattie@freebsd.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, koobs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r535526 - in head: . sysutils sysutils/py-rdiff-backup sysutils/py-rdiff-backup/files sysutils/rdiff-backup Message-ID: <20200520165905.114abeca25f06c90b71f3945@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20200520143655.rvvwajvklbkzyvdz@aching.in.mat.cc> References: <202005170835.04H8ZKws029186@repo.freebsd.org> <20200520143655.rvvwajvklbkzyvdz@aching.in.mat.cc>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mathieu Arnold <mat@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 08:35:20AM +0000, Hiroki Tagato wrote: > > - Rename portname to py-rdiff-backup following Python Ports > > Policy[1] > > This feels like a very bad idea, for more than one reason. This was reviewed in (you subscribed too): https://reviews.freebsd.org/D24816 > - This renamed the package, so once again, it left users running pkg > upgrade with an outdated version. Unless they notice it and figure > out what the new name of the port is. > - This looks like a end user tool, so, people will want to install > rdiff-backup, not pyxy-rdiff-backup. > > All in all, I think the rename should be backed out. koobs reasoning made sense to me but I don't mind renaming the port again if there is a final consensus.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200520165905.114abeca25f06c90b71f3945>