New comment by sgn on void-packages repository

https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/40919#issuecomment-1338495695

Comment:
> Upstream renamed to kubo. Why not rename the package to follow upstream's name? [link to relevant section of the void-packages manual](https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/blob/master/Manual.md#renaming-a-package)

I'm not care that must, the binary's name is still `ipfs`.

> 
> We also have a hot mess in the form of the fs-repo-migrations package. This is a thing that gets used once after upgrade, to convert the IPFS repository layout and metadata to a possibly new format. Most distros don't even bother packaging it, because the ipfs binary is capable of downloading and running repo migration binaries from the Internet. When I made the go-ipfs package back in the day, I packaged fs-repo-migrations, because downloading and running random binaries from the net is not cool. Nix and Void are possibly the only two distros that package it. Upstream has made it difficult to package [fs-repo-migrations issue 148](https://github.com/ipfs/fs-repo-migrations/issues/148), but that problem is soluble. There's even a draft [pull request](https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/37775) for it! Unfortunately, the package fails at runtime when built with Go 1.19. [fs-repo-migrations issue 156](https://github.com/ipfs/fs-repo-migrations/issues/156)

Let's see.

> So if this gets merged, our only recourse right now is to have people remove fs-repo-migrations and use binaries from upstream. Unfortunately that won't work for people on musl.

This is about trying to see if https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/39083 can be resolved.
I can look into them later.