On 23/01/12 at 06:29pm, Alex Belanger wrote:
I'm not a Trusted User (they know much more stuff than I do about packages), but in my opinion the name choices were wrong in the first place.
You may want to go through the trouble of warning your users about the future name changes, then ask here to make it happen.
Of course it's annoying for the end-users but if its for the better... why not.
Most of us will quickly give a look in the AUR as soon as something break for an explanation. Just don't forget to write about it in the comments.
Btw, does the other maintainer knows?
On Jan 23, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Psychedelic Squid <psquid@psquid.net> wrote:
-- SNIP --
Yes, the wrong name choices are why both myself and timttmy would prefer them to be changed (he made a previous attempt at some time around the 26th of Oct last year[1], but somehow the package just ended up with a different version number. I'm not 100% sure why). I was hoping there was some way to have AUR wrappers understand that the packages had renamed, but I had suspected that there wasn't anything of that nature. Ah well. Anyway, I'll get on with making sure people are reasonably aware of the name change, then post a follow-up here once it should be safe to do the rename. Thanks for the help! [1] see the comments on <https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=42734>