I guess this is a good summary of all the talk in virtualbox-sun's comment section[1].
The reality here is that virtualbox-bin[2] has evolved into something _at least_ as good as virtualbox-sun. While it's true that -sun is the original one it's also the one with the incorrect naming, a bit slower updates (by a day or so) and less votes (229 vs -bin's 3430). Because we can't justify keeping duplicated work around just to make everybody happy, one of them has to go.
Even if -sun was to stay here the "better" stuff in -bin would have to be implemented there first before the removal and the renaming. When put together with the comment/vote merge it's starting to sound a bit pointless (taken how we can just remove that one).
I know what I'd do but it's not my decision: it's yours.
[1] virtualbox-sun = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31996 [2] virtualbox-bin = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=51727
Det
2012/3/26 Det nimetonmaili@gmail.com:
I guess this is a good summary of all the talk in virtualbox-sun's comment section[1].
The reality here is that virtualbox-bin[2] has evolved into something _at least_ as good as virtualbox-sun. While it's true that -sun is the original one it's also the one with the incorrect naming, a bit slower updates (by a day or so) and less votes (229 vs -bin's 3430). Because we can't justify keeping duplicated work around just to make everybody happy, one of them has to go.
Even if -sun was to stay here the "better" stuff in -bin would have to be implemented there first before the removal and the renaming. When put together with the comment/vote merge it's starting to sound a bit pointless (taken how we can just remove that one).
I know what I'd do but it's not my decision: it's yours.
[1] virtualbox-sun = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31996 [2] virtualbox-bin = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=51727
Det
It is interesting how both provide the same version of the same softwaer, but have totally different depedency listed. For example, "kernel26-headers" for virtualbox-sun.
On 26.3.2012 19:06, rafael ff1 wrote:
2012/3/26 Detnimetonmaili@gmail.com:
I guess this is a good summary of all the talk in virtualbox-sun's comment section[1].
The reality here is that virtualbox-bin[2] has evolved into something _at least_ as good as virtualbox-sun. While it's true that -sun is the original one it's also the one with the incorrect naming, a bit slower updates (by a day or so) and less votes (229 vs -bin's 3430). Because we can't justify keeping duplicated work around just to make everybody happy, one of them has to go.
Even if -sun was to stay here the "better" stuff in -bin would have to be implemented there first before the removal and the renaming. When put together with the comment/vote merge it's starting to sound a bit pointless (taken how we can just remove that one).
I know what I'd do but it's not my decision: it's yours.
[1] virtualbox-sun = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31996 [2] virtualbox-bin = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=51727
DetIt is interesting how both provide the same version of the same softwaer, but have totally different depedency listed. For example, "kernel26-headers" for virtualbox-sun.
Yeah. -sun is a bit outdated there too.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Det nimetonmaili@gmail.com wrote:
I guess this is a good summary of all the talk in virtualbox-sun's comment section[1].
The reality here is that virtualbox-bin[2] has evolved into something _at least_ as good as virtualbox-sun.
While it's true that -sun is the original one it's also the one with the incorrect naming
If i remember correctly first was virtualbox_bin[1] (which was renammed into virtualbox-bin last year).
Even if -sun was to stay here the "better" stuff in -bin would have to be implemented there first before the removal and the renaming.
I don't understand your sentence. Is there something missing in -bin that you need?
I remind everyone is encouraged to use the version in the official repositories[2].
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?O=0&K=virtualbox_bin [2] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/virtualbox/
On 27.3.2012 0:39, Seblu wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Detnimetonmaili@gmail.com wrote:
While it's true that -sun is the original one it's also the one with the incorrect naming
If i remember correctly first was virtualbox_bin[1] (which was renammed into virtualbox-bin last year).
Even better.
Even if -sun was to stay here the "better" stuff in -bin would have to be implemented there first before the removal and the renaming.
I don't understand your sentence. Is there something missing in -bin that you need?
No, I mean that if -bin was removed, then the missing "-bin stuff" should be implemented in -sun, before -bin was removed and -sun renamed to -bin. But this was when I still thought that -sun was the original one. Since it's not, there's no reason anymore for keeping it.
I remind everyone is encouraged to use the version in the official repositories[2].
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?O=0&K=virtualbox_bin [2] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/virtualbox/
Actually, yeah. I forgot the "PUEL" stuff is nowadays available through the extension pack.
But this should, of course, still be taken care of.
Det
No responses in a week. Trust me, -bin[1] covers everything that -sun[2] does. In addition it's the original one and it has more votes.
We don't need both.
[1] virtualbox-bin = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=51727 [2] virtualbox-sun = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31996
Det
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Det nimetonmaili@gmail.com wrote:
No responses in a week. Trust me, -bin[1] covers everything that -sun[2] does. In addition it's the original one and it has more votes.
We don't need both.
[1] virtualbox-bin = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=51727 [2] virtualbox-sun = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31996
Det
ok if nobody object, i will merge -sun in -bin.
Cheers,
On 2 April 2012 22:22, Seblu seblu@seblu.net wrote:
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Det nimetonmaili@gmail.com wrote:
No responses in a week. Trust me, -bin[1] covers everything that -sun[2] does. In addition it's the original one and it has more votes.
We don't need both.
[1] virtualbox-bin = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=51727 [2] virtualbox-sun = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31996
Det
ok if nobody object, i will merge -sun in -bin.
Cheers,
-- Sébastien Luttringer www.seblu.net
removing virtualbox-sun is fine with me.
Lukas
+1 from me too. Go for it, seblu :)
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Det nimetonmaili@gmail.com wrote:
I guess this is a good summary of all the talk in virtualbox-sun's comment section[1].
The reality here is that virtualbox-bin[2] has evolved into something _at least_ as good as virtualbox-sun. While it's true that -sun is the original one it's also the one with the incorrect naming, a bit slower updates (by a day or so) and less votes (229 vs -bin's 3430). Because we can't justify keeping duplicated work around just to make everybody happy, one of them has to go.
Even if -sun was to stay here the "better" stuff in -bin would have to be implemented there first before the removal and the renaming. When put together with the comment/vote merge it's starting to sound a bit pointless (taken how we can just remove that one).
I know what I'd do but it's not my decision: it's yours.
[1] virtualbox-sun = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31996 [2] virtualbox-bin = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=51727
Det
Package removed. Thanks.
aur-general@lists.archlinux.org