freebsd-git-arc-devtools: Was freebsd-git-devtools
AbandonedPublic
Actions

Authored by ziaee on Thu, Feb 5, 4:26 PM.

Details

Reviewers

jrm
markj
emaste
jhb

Summary

The fact we have a git arc package is tribal knowlege. Bring it to the
light by making pkg sea git-arc show this package. Unfortunately, the
name now clobbers into the second column, as many ports do, but I chose
this for the draft so we don't regress any search terms. I think this
will need a portrevision or something?

Requested by: adrian

Diff Detail

Repository

R11 FreeBSD ports repository

Lint

Lint Skipped

Unit

Tests Skipped

Build Status

Buildable 70433
Build 67316: arc lint + arc unit

Event Timeline

ziaee requested review of this revision.Thu, Feb 5, 4:26 PM

ziaee created this revision.

Harbormaster completed remote builds in B70433: Diff 171245.Thu, Feb 5, 4:26 PM

If we were to rename the port, an entry in MOVED would also be required. However, I don't think calling it git-arc makes sense, at least in its current state. The port is not just for git arc; mfc-candidates is part of it as well. What I can do is break it into two separate ports.

There's a bunch of references to the current name in development.7 and in the doc tree, plus in the git-arc man page, plus the phabricator wiki page. Rather than renaming the package and thus invalidating the documentation and existing tribal knowledge, can we add an alias for the package, and/or identify documentation which refers to git-arc but does not mention the package, and update that? jrm's suggestion also seems ok.

Requested by: adrian

From IRC it's not clear to me whether he tried searching for a package at all.

I did, I tried searching for 'pkg search git-arc' ;-P

There's a bunch of references to the current name in development.7 and in the doc tree, plus in the git-arc man page, plus the phabricator wiki page.

I'm happy to update everything but the wiki page, as I think this is totally a real issue.

Rather than renaming the package and thus invalidating the documentation and existing tribal knowledge, can we add an alias for the package, and/or identify documentation which refers to git-arc but does not mention the package, and update that? jrm's suggestion also seems ok.

An alias would be the best solution, but I didn't see anything that seemed appropriate in the Porter's handbook searching for alias. Splitting the package would also be fine with me, and avoid clobbering the field widths.