On 3/16/11, Ng Oon-Ee <ngoonee@gmail.com> wrote:
Package foo exists in [extra], and foo-devel in the AUR.
foo-devel is obviously based off unstable tarball releases (otherwise it would be foo-git, foo-svn, foo-hg or similar).
So let's say foo is at version 4.0 (stable), should foo-devel stay at 3.9 (the last beta/rc/unstable release) or update to 4.0?
Just a general question. My gnucash-devel package is currently pretty much identical to the one in [extra], and it does seem a bit unnecessary because the project itself does not currently have unstable releases.
At least when I'm using -dev(el) packages I do so to get the most bleeding edge releases of that specific software (decluding svn/hg/git versions - unless recommended by upstream). I don't even understand how could anybody cope with just having unstable releases :). I myself quickly get annoyed by the crashes/lagginess/whatever. But as Jan said, it's a preference question decided by the maintainer (you). Det