2011/3/16 Ng Oon-Ee <ngoonee@gmail.com>:

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.

I don't think we need a policy here. Let the maintainer decide. If they want to spend time keeping -devel up to date with the stable releases, it's their decision. The users can switch to another package if they want. So anything is fine. Even removing it.

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