oil: update to 0.23.0

[bugcrazy]

Testing the changes

• I tested the changes in this PR: YES

[leahneukirchen]

So, while we are renaming the package, should we do it like upstream suggests? https://github.com/oils-for-unix/oils/wiki/Oils-Packaging-Guidelines

[bugcrazy]

So, while we are renaming the package, should we do it like upstream suggests? https://github.com/oils-for-unix/oils/wiki/Oils-Packaging-Guidelines

The definition itself is confusing, as there are two packages, one Python and one C, we should adopt more logical standards, this oils standard for package, is more correct.

[leahneukirchen]

Okay, so this is the old Python-version, but there upstream says: https://www.oilshell.org/release/0.23.0/

The oil tarball is the slow reference interpreter based on CPython.

Don't rename old distro packages. They can remain oil.
It's not worth packaging oil in new distros. It may be removed at some point.

So let's keep this (just adding the link is fine), and perhaps someone can contribute oils-for-unix instead?

[bugcrazy]

So, while we are renaming the package, should we do it like upstream suggests? https://github.com/oils-for-unix/oils/wiki/Oils-Packaging-Guidelines

The definition itself is confusing, as there are two packages, one Python and one C, we should adopt more logical standards, this oils standard for package, is more correct.

Okay, so this is the old Python-version, but there upstream says: https://www.oilshell.org/release/0.23.0/

The oil tarball is the slow reference interpreter based on CPython.
Don't rename old distro packages. They can remain oil.
It's not worth packaging oil in new distros. It may be removed at some point.

So let's keep this (just adding the link is fine), and perhaps someone can contribute oils-for-unix instead?

Python version is slow, a few seconds, C++ version is slower than bash version.

Python version is more stable and tested, has a history of having fewer bugs.

Here is a speed test and some bugs of the C++ version:

oils-for-unix/oils#1069

[ahesford]

We don't need multiple versions of this package in Void, and the project author notes that the "reference" implementation might go away at some point, so just pick one to be the version packaged by Void.

[leahneukirchen]

@ahesford doesnt matter, the new version should have a new package name anyway (and conflict, I guess)

[meator]

and perhaps someone can contribute oils-for-unix instead?

I've tried to package oils-for-unix: #52218

[meator]

Also, I vote for keeping oil as is and not renaming it to oils. This is what upstream recommends.

[bugcrazy]

I keep the old name oil or rename it to oils, @meator voted to keep the old name, because I need to know what procedure I do, the package needs to be updated too!

[leahneukirchen]

yes, please keep the old name.

[bugcrazy]

yes, please keep the old name.

Done!

[classabbyamp]

what will happen for anyone using oil as login shell?

[bugcrazy]

what will happen for anyone using oil as login shell?
It will work normally.