Hello,
True, but the vast majority are using the proper guideline naming of golang-*. Maybe the rest were created before the guidelines?
Maybe, but I doubt it. The package guidelines were created in 2012 which is a good 11 years ago, that would have been more than enough time to migrate or before the majority of go software, so I am not sure this is the case. But I could be wrong. I guess the only way to know for sure is to wait for a package maintainer (formerly TU) to comment on this problem.
Sure, but the AUR is full of garbage. I would stick to the guidelines and use golang-* (of course also including the module prefix if it's applicable as per guidelines). AUR packages can be deleted/merged if needed.
Not everything on the AUR is garbage. Also the same can be said about official packages, they can be renamed or changed at any point. Compared to the other guidelines, golang differs, the idea is to keep the package name as short as possible. The guidelines state "go package guidelines", not "golang package guidelines", which differs because all the other guidelines preserve the same naming, aka rust package guidelines use rust-* php uses php-* nodejs uses nodejs-* you get the point. I assume the original reason was as Ralf said, the domain was originally golang, and golang was its name, go was just its shortened name but its a verb so can be confused when using it as a noun. My point is, is go-* packages on the official repositories due to them being outdated as eclairevoyant has suggested, or are they there due to package maintainers preferring a different prefix (aka migration possibly?!!?). In other words, are the guidelines planned to be changed, or is it something else? Thank you, -- Polarian GPG signature: 0770E5312238C760 Website: https://polarian.dev JID/XMPP: polarian@polarian.dev