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.