Bug 262883
| Summary: | The pkg package name for x11-wm/xfce4 should be changed from xfce to xfce4 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Ports & Packages | Reporter: | ykla <yklaxds> |
| Component: | Individual Port(s) | Assignee: | freebsd-xfce (Nobody) <xfce> |
| Status: | Open --- | ||
| Severity: | Affects Some People | CC: | duchateau.olivier, madpilot |
| Priority: | --- | Flags: | madpilot:
maintainer-feedback+
|
| Version: | Latest | ||
| Hardware: | Any | ||
| OS: | Any | ||
|
Description
ykla
2022-03-28 11:43:15 UTC
Hi, Thanks for reporting this. While I do not dismiss your worry right away, things don't look so clear cut to me as you imply. In fact I don't feel like taking a decision by myself, I'd like to get feedback from other committers and contributors before any action is taken on this. To give a timeframe, the naming of this metaport has been like this for a long time, this is the commit which set it to "xfce": https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/commit/?id=73097a726707ebe313ebbe450c3731df14ad431c (referencing on the current git repo, at the time we were still using CVS) An important consideration to make is that changing the pkgname of a port is quite invasive, all users would have to tell pkg to move to the new one. Also renaming the port directory has consequences, for example all users using lists of origins (for example for poudriere, but also scripts and configuration management systems can digest those) would requires users to change their configurations. So any of these changes has to stand a POLA challenge, that means: is the "astonishment" imposed on users who would have to perform special steps to keep up with the change acceptable when weighted against its advantages? The advantage you claim is conformance. Which may not be worth reverting a 19 years old change and forcing all users of xfce to reconfigure their systems. Also there is no real rule for package names to equal the port directory name, in fact most flavored ports for different python, perl and php versions end up with a package name that is not aligned with their directory name in the ports tree. I've not looked up for more examples. My impression is that a more correct fix would be to change the directory name from x11-wm/xfce4 to x11-wm/xfce, since it is quit improbable we will never have more than one major xfce version in the tree anyway, and the actual name ISS xfce. But Personally I'm open to any options, as long as it creates as little astonishment/confusion/need for manual intervention for users and committers as possible AND some consensus is reached on it. One more thought: It could also be said we should have all xfce ports transition xfce4-* -> xfce-* but it makes sense to keep the 4 there. We can't be sure one day to need a parallel xfce5-* bunch of ports. Also renaming ALL xfce ports would definitely be hard to defend against a POLA accusation. The x11-wm/xfce4 thing is actually a metaport, so in this view of things, it could make more sense to fix the directory name (x11-wm/xfce4 -> x11-wm/xfce) to make it clear that it points to the default/latest one. Obviously the option to change nothing since things work as is and just procrastinating the decision to rename things to a future when there will be an xfce5 around also stands. (In reply to ykla from comment #0) xfce is name of meta binary package. It installs the desktop and some official applications (such Mousepad, xfce4-terminal, ...). But this meta package is not mandatory to have a Xfce session. You can run xfdesktop (real name not xfce4-desktop) without these applications (except Thunar, because it is daemon too). I'm not in favor of such renaming. |
