On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:00:14 +0300 Νῖκος Θεοδώρου <ntheo1979@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello.
Up until a few months ago, the sources were stored in a ftp server, so naming was simple.
Then they only kept git ("master" and "stable"). The [extra] package [1] pulls from git, but it's called "libx264". Initially I called the lib32 version lib32-libx264 as well, but then gS644 in the comments suggested the stable-git suffix and I went on with it (the TUs didn't raise an objection at the merge request). Now JonnyJD raises the naming issue again. The whole discussion can be found at the package's comments [2].
To be honest, I'm not sure how the package should be named, so I am asking here for a final judgement on the matter.
[1] http://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/trunk/PKGBUILD?h=pa... [2] http://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/lib32-libx264-stable-git/
Thank you. Nikos
Nikos, The [extra] package is always set to some particular commit from stable branch. I don't have particular opinion on your question, but as a user, I would expect lib32-libx264 to provide the same commit as the repositories counterpart do, -git to track master branch and -foobar-git to track commits in foobar branch. Bartłomiej