netbsdnoob Anyway why don't we change the naming, I mean why is it called racket-textual and not racket-minimal as the website suggests?
Probably because the textual distribution doesn't come with the graphical IDE (drracket). One more reason to fix lang/racket. Renaming a package is not devoid of trouble, so I'd leave it as it is.
netbsdnoob I mean let's say that we have lang/whatever which refers to version 5.3 and I actually create the package in wip/ for version 5.5 should i name the package in wip like: wip/whatever5.5 ? Or what kind of convention do we use here?
You can name it the way you want; there is a certain degree of freedom when doing things in wip. In my opinion, if it's just a standard update, you can put the package on wip with the same name as that found in the main tree, then create an update ticket on @pkgsrc-bugs ( see the GNATS database and send-pr(1)), asking to update the package in pkgsrc using the wip version, with all the required diffs attached.
If your package is for a new branch of a given piece of software (e.g. a complete rewrite in a different language, a partial rewrite based on a different set of libraries, a major release pulling new dependencies), then it makes sense to name the wip version as wip/<pkgname>2. In this case it would be reasonable to assume that package will be eventually imported with such name in pkgsrc and coexist with the previous branch (now put in maintenance mode). Example: wm/fvwm and wm/fvwm3.
A different case is when the new branch actually supersedes its deprecated ancestor (probably the case of wip/openssl3), and we have tools in pkgsrc to actually carry out such transition in a clean way.
