On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 4:00 AM, Gaetan Bisson <bisson@archlinux.org> wrote:

[2011-07-26 21:36:07 +0200] speps:

...

Please do not touch audacious2{,-plugins} since they provide a gtk2 version of the audacious{,-plugins} in extra, that does not conflict with the gtk3 one.

My two cents: audacious2 makes it seem like it is version 2.* of audacious; I would name the package audacious-gtk2 instead.

-- Gaetan

quite agree. i created an audacious-gtk2 package several days ago without the knowledge that audacious2 was there which meant to provide audacious compiled against gtk2.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:00:29 -0700 Gaetan Bisson <bisson@archlinux.org> wrote:

My two cents: audacious2 makes it seem like it is version 2.* of audacious; I would name the package audacious-gtk2 instead.

There's actually no real convention about gtk{2,3} naming. Actually some packages uses the 3 suffix like libwebkit3 or vte3, others (on AUR) uses the -gtk{2,3} one. The evinced rules seem like to be if main package defaults on gtk2 && is a lib -> add suffix 3 (ex libwebkit in extra) if main package defaults on gtk2 && is not a lib -> add suffix -gtk3 (ex pan on AUR) if main package defaults on gtk3 -> add suffix -gtk2 (ex gnome-terminal on AUR) I usually follow these unspoken rules for my packages, btw the audacious2{-plugins} follows a different line, identified with the "2" suffix. It provides a gtk2 version of the package that does not conflicts with the gtk3 one. To let this be possible a lot of naming have to be changed in the source package. Since I did not found a good suffix for meaning this (-gtk2-no-conflict, -coexist ?) I thought the unused ${pkgname}2 would have been perfect and far from ambiguity (since pkgver=3.0) I did the same with evince2 on AUR, but in that case there's also the version matching as a good reason (2.32.0), even if there was an evince-gtk yet. Btw, if you think the audacious{,-plugins}-gtk2 and evince2-gtk2 solution fits better for meaning the coexistence possibility, feel free to delete 'em. Otherwise, you're right, some misunderstanding could occur and maybe a clarification in the description would help and can be pushed. -- speps --