svn commit: r535526 - in head: . sysutils sysutils/py-rdiff-backup sysutils/py-rdiff-backup/files sysutils/rdiff-backup

[Emanuel Haupt]

Mathieu Arnold <mat at freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 04:59:05PM +0200, Emanuel Haupt wrote:
> > Mathieu Arnold <mat at 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 pkg upgrade with an outdated version.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.
> 
> I don't know the reasoning, but anything that 1) breaks the normal
> upgrade path, and 2) makes it non trivial to figure out the name of
> the package, must have a flaw somewhere.

The detailed reasoning is in the review, search for "On naming (py- or
not)"