On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:41 AM, Maxime Gauduin <alucryd@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Sergej Pupykin <ml@sergej.pp.ru> wrote:
Hi,
Bartłomiej Piotrowski proposed packaging standard changes: if there are 2 versions of some package foobar, then older version (1.0 for example) must be named as foobar1-1.0 and newer version (2.0 for example) must be named as foobar-2.0.
I did not see such rule yet on https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_ Standards#Package_naming page, but my package openjpeg2 was silently removed with this reason however there are gtk* and wxgtk* packages that also violate this rule.
I insist on giving me proof-link for this rule, including this rule into wiki (https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_ Standards#Package_naming) and renaming all packages according this rule.
Or just leave it as is and stop dropping my packages.
For more info see: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/38016
I would change that rule a bit, because wxgtk is a special case. The 2.9
branch is a devel branch, keeping wxgtk for the stable branch and adding a suffix for the devel branch makes sense. Speaking of wxgtk, now that 3.0.0 is out, we will most likely need to get rid of wxgtk29 and create a legacy wxgtk28 package.
Exact. I was waiting so that more packages work with the new wxgtk. I'll start the rebuild in January after the holidays. Eric
Anyway, imho the rule should be: use plain name for the latest stable release, and add the appropriate suffix (usually 1 or 2 digits) for any other release.
Cheers, -- Maxime