On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 09:45:35PM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2009/01/07 13:31, Aaron Stellman wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 09:59:37PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Sat, 03.01.2009 at 20:51:40 +0300, Kirill S. Bychkov > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > This is a resubmit of apcupsd port. > > > > Any comments/oks? > > > > > > I have no comment on the port, just a question: What would be the > > > advantage of using apcupsd in favour of nut? > > > > Lacking advantage over nut is not a valid reason why apcupsd shouldn't > > be imported to ports. There are multiple ports in the tree that do > > redundant tasks -- it's a matter of choice. I used to use apcupsd myself, > > and was forced to adopt nut. I don't regret it in any way. > > The forerunner to this is already in-tree. The name changed slightly > (removed a -) but I don't see why we shouldn't just keep the old name > so that existing users can upgrade to it with pkg_add -u.
I would be very much surprised if there are actual users of sysutils/apc-upsd. * It's from 1999 (support for newer models isn't there) * distfile isn't even fetch'able * config file went through drastic changes (users probably should be notified) In any case, keeping the old name probably does make sense for other reasons.
