Code fork

[avysk]

For your information: I have forked the code at https://github.com/avysk/wmctrl-fork; added some enhancement from the net; and created a FreeBSD port.

[juhp]

Could you enable the issue tracker?

Why rename to wmctrl-fork?

[avysk]

Issue tracker enabled. The rename was requested by FreeBSD people who committed my port (I have no commit rights myself) into the tree (think about "port" as a Makefile, describing where to get the code, how to compile it, and how to install). There is so-called MOVED file in FreeBSD port tree, so anyone who used the original (not supported, non-buildable now) port will automatically change to mine.

The binary is still called wmctrl; the rename request was only for the repository name.

[juhp]

Thanks (I am the fedora maintainer btw 👋)

Fair enough - I dunno I mean I kinda get it, but why not just switch directly to your upstream...
I think in Fedora our source packages are supposed to follow upstream name - but I don't have the time or energy to add a new package for this really, but maybe someone who needs it could do so - I need to check if it is okay.

[avysk]

I also was puzzled a bit by request (the repo was called originally just wmctrl) but I decided it is not a battle I want to fight :)

[juhp]

Anyway probably I could switch the fedora wmctrl package to follow wmctrl-fork.

[juhp]

Well I don't want to insist, but I really think it would make more sense to rename it back to wmctrl 🤷‍♂️
(it is a bit like calling one's main branch main-branch).
It is also clearly a github fork anyway...
I don't think it is really a downstream's prerogative to decide the upstream name either: though they can choose the name of their packaging of course.

(The alternative would be to do a hard rename like wmctrl2 or something completely different - though I am not advocating that.)

[avysk]

I agree with you, but as said, I felt it is not the battle I want to fight in. I wanted the port in FreeBSD, so I just complied.