On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Ray Rashif <schiv@archlinux.org> wrote:
A little tangent but from this page it seems to me that a '-git' or '-svn' suffix should only be applied when there is a version of the package without that suffix in the name; this is to differentiate between the 'stable' and the 'development' version of the same package.
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/VCS_PKGBUILD_Guidelines
In his AUR page there are some packages with '-svn' or '-git' suffixes
On 2 December 2010 22:01, Kaiting Chen <kaitocracy@gmail.com> wrote: that
do not have non-suffixed counterparts. Is this correct? I would like to update that wiki page to explain the convention more clearly. --Kaiting.
OK, let me get this right. You mean that when for eg. a software only has a development source tree and no tarball, it should just be 'package' and not 'package-vcs'?
If so, I don't think that would be proper. If a PKGBUILD fetches development sources, it should have a development suffix. However, exceptions can be made sometimes.
Personally, I know of at least one upstream that does not directly offer a tarball, but instead has (or rather had) an SVN tag that distributors could check out. This package would then be named without a vcs suffix.
My original view had been that a package would be simply called 'package' regardless of whether or not a source tarball was offered. Then if someone makes a version that builds against upstream VCS, that package would be called package-vcs. In light of this new discussion however, I feel like the proper policy is to name a package without a suffix if there is a 'versioned release', no matter where this comes from (source tarball, vcs tag, etc.). Then the converse is that if a package has *no release* but just a rolling development trunk, then it is given a suffix. --Kaiting. -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/