*-devel ports

[Thomas de Grivel]

2008/2/4, Vincent Lefevre <vincent-opdarw at vinc17.org>:
> On 2008-02-04 11:27:24 -0600, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> > Regarding the suggestion to rename all *-devel ports to *-latest, in
> > light of the above change, the name "latest" would indeed seem to be
> > clearer. It would also remove any potential confusion with the RPM -
> > devel packages, which IMHO would be quite a good thing.
>
> I think this would be a good idea.
>
> > I guess this is as good a time as any to bring up the "tin" ports:
> >
> > $ port search ^tin$ ^tin-
> > tin                            news/tin       1.8.3        A threaded
> > NNTP and spool based UseNet newsreader
> > tin-devel                      news/tin-devel 1.7.10       A threaded
> > NNTP and spool based UseNet newsreader
> > tin-recent                     news/tin-recent 1.9.2        A Usenet
> > newsreader
> > $
> >
> > Now, ignore the version numbers shown for a minute. Based on comments in
> > the header of "tin-recent" (copied below), it seems to be the
> > maintainer's intention (hey, that's you, Vincent!) that "tin" is the
> > latest released version, "tin-devel" is the latest development version,
> > and "tin-recent" is the more recent of the two. It looks like someone has
> > updated tin-recent but forgotten to update tin-devel. So, to match
>
> AFAIK, tin-devel is no longer maintained (and perhaps no longer used).
>
> > Vincent's new proposals, "tin-devel" gets deleted and "tin-recent" gets
> > renamed to "tin-latest", yes?
>
> +1 for this new policy.

Then we would have to warn new users about -latest not being so stable
because intuitively I would like the latest version to be installed
but what retains me the the previous one is that "it just works". For
the sake of stability I would have -unstable marked clearly, so that
the users dont expect too much magic with -latest.

-- 
  Thomas de Grivel