On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Dave Reisner <d@falconindy.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 05:13:56PM +0100, Cédric Girard wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
Packages that are built from vcs but which are based on some form of upstream "release" should not include the tag in the package name.
I think the simplest rule of thumb would be that if the same PKGBUILD generates different binary packages depending on when makepkg was run, then it
should
include the suffix in the name.
These two rules are not the same. For instance the package xbmc-svn [1] is based on fixed svn version that does not corresponds to any "release" upstream. It is just tested svn revisions (by the packager) as not every revisions are usable.
So doesn't that just mean that we have some packages currently in existance which break the guideline we're trying to establish? I propose that this particular package is named incorrectly, and would be better off as xbmc-devel.
dave
Yes you are right I misread Xyne message and understood the two rules quoted above as different. One is just broader than the other but there is no contradiction between them. -- Cédric Girard