On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 21:14:52 -0400 Travis Willard <travis@archlinux.org> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 09:04:06 +0100 Tom K <tom@archlinux.org> wrote:
Travis Willard wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:36:02 -0400 "Travis Willard" <travis@archlinux.org> wrote:
Any thoughts or suggestions, just reply to this thread. :)
Actually, anyone have any issues with my putting them in unstable? That seems to make the most sense, after thinking about it.
If there's no comments in the next 12h or so I'll go ahead and upload them - I don't think there'll be much of a problem with it.
-- Travis
Uh, an observation. I've always understood that unstable package names should not clash with names in other repos - hence, mplayer-svn, gimp-devel, etc. This is certainly what we say on the relevant wiki page: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Official_Repositories and it is also this convention that allows us to state, also on that page, that enabling the unstable repo is safe, because unstable packages will never overwrite current/extra packages. Finally, it allows those who decide to use unstable to install the packages with the standard pacman -Sy foo, rather than the slightly clunkier pacman -Sy repo/foo.
Sorry I missed the 12h cut-off, btw - all kinds of crap going wrong around here. :)
Tom.
Yeah, Eric emailed me directly about this - I guess I bungled that. I'll think up a fancy name for the unstable packages and re-do 'em.
Bah, the more I think about this, the less I want to pollute the package namespace (and replaces, conflicts, provides entries on fglrx* packages) with some gimpy name like fglrx-unstable, and I'd rather just make a custom repo and be done with it. "Early-adopters" have had their shot at a package in unstable. ;) Is it OK if I host a custom repo for the new fglrx in my public_html dir on gerolde? I don't have any better place to put it. -- Travis