On 2017/10/15 19:15, Thomas Levine wrote:
> 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.)
The packages can have the same stem. The port directory name is
irrelevant. See what happens if you e.g. pkg_add emacs.
In this case they are different programs really. It's a rewrite by
someone else, not a normal update. So whatever you do is going to be
confusing in some way.
> 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.
No major objection to allowing them to be installed together as long
as it's done correctly with updates working. But I don't see why
existing users should have to change their cronjobs or mess about
with symlinks.
