Thank you for all the comments. I have incorporated the suggestions to
set Python versions without using flavors, to fix the @pkgpath markers,
and to use PyPI. I have still avoided the conflict, against Stuart's
recommendation. I have also marked Kaashif as the maintainer, though he
should confirm that that's still okay.
The first tarball uses the mail/rss2email/{2,3} structure, and the
second version uses the mail/rss2email{,3} structure.
https://thomaslevine.com/scm/mystuff/uv/mail/rss2email.tar.gz
https://thomaslevine.com/scm/mystuff/uv/mail/rss2email3.tar.gz
I don't really understand how to choose between these two structures.
The only difference to me is that the packages wind up having different
names. (And in that respect, I find the mail/rss2email/{2,3} structure
to be more intuitive for when I'm looking for the package.)
Stuart Henderson wrote in August:
> It doesn't work with a simple update from an old installation (after
> updating, there's no output from "r2e run" or "r2e list"). That's why it
> hasn't been updated before, btw.
This is why I added directions for upgrading.
Stuart Henderson wrote yesterday:
> I think it's unnecessarily complex to avoid the conflict here. It seems
> better to just add a new mail/rss2email3 port and leave the existing one
> alone. The @pkgpath markers are wrong in this tar.gz but the above
> changes would mean they aren't needed anyway.
My main reason for allowing them to be installed simultaneously is to
make the data format conversion easier. Alternatives are to name the
executables r2e{,3}, which I find confusing, (rather than r2e{2,3}) or
to direct people to install and deinstall the packages multiple times
during the upgrade process, which I think is more annoying to test.
I thus think it is important to avoid the conflict.
