Bug 243960

Summary: [NEW PORT] sysutils/helm2 reintroduce helm version 2 port
Product: Ports & Packages Reporter: Philipp Erbelding <philipp>
Component: Individual Port(s)Assignee: freebsd-ports-bugs (Nobody) <ports-bugs>
Status: Open ---    
Severity: Affects Only Me CC: danilo, lwhsu
Priority: ---    
Version: Latest   
Hardware: Any   
OS: Any   
Description Flags
readds helm2 none

Description Philipp Erbelding 2020-02-07 15:32:25 UTC
Created attachment 211449 [details]
readds helm2

To ease the transition from helm 2 to helm 3 I'd like to propose introducing helm 2 as a "helm2" port.

I've also updated helm 2 to the the latest patch release of helm 2.

I'm not sure if there are special criteria to introduce such transition or legacy ports. If this is a completely outlandish idea, have mercy, I may have learned a bit or two about the technical aspects of ports but policy wise I'm quite unsure.

Should DEPRECATED be set for this port?
Comment 1 Danilo Egea Gondolfo freebsd_committer 2020-07-05 08:56:38 UTC
Hello Philipp, thank you for your patch. I agree that it's a good idea to add sysutils/helm2, I thought it would be deprecated soon but it's still being maintained.

lwhsu@ (I noticed you opened the bug report) in this case, the correct way to do that is doing a repo-copy [1] from sysutils/helm. Also, the dependencies can be added to GH_TUPLE [2]. The revision found in this patch is from when I kept a tarball with all the modules. Now it can be solved with GH_TUPLE.

Philipp, do you want to take the maintainership of this port? Otherwise, lwhsu@
please, feel free to add the port and take the maintainership.


[1] - https://wiki.freebsd.org/PortsSubversionPrimer#Repo-Copy
[2] - https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/building.html#using-go
Comment 2 Philipp Erbelding 2020-07-07 19:20:00 UTC
I'd be happy to give maintainership a shot and this does look like a reasonable place to start.

On a related note: In my day to day I've had the need to have both versions installed, which I managed manually by renaming the helm 2 binary to 'helm2'.

I feel there is some precedent on doing this, for example looking at python. Would this be reasonable? It seems like a thing to best do before adding the port as new.

As far as I understand for the repocopy there is nothing for me to do. I'll look into renaming and prepare a patch for that as well as the maintainer change.