[aur-general] Should {libwebkit,libsoup}-newest be deleted - Aur-general - lists.archlinux.org

newer
[aur-general] [delete request]...

[aur-general] Should {libwebkit,libsoup}-newest be deleted

older
[aur-general] Orphan Request

Nezmer＠allurelinux.org

13 Oct 2009 13 Oct '09

9:15 p.m.

hi, As you might already know , webkit-gtk and its dependency libsoup are always under heavy development . I added {libwebkit,libsoup}-newest PKGBUILDS to the AUR because libwebkit releases started to depend on development releases from libsoup(2.27.x) . With gnome 2.28.x entering extra , the *-newest packages provide the same versions available in the official repos. Should I ask for the deletion of those packages ? Or keep them around in case webkit starts to depend on libsoup 2.29.x ?

Show replies by date

Ronald van Haren

13 Oct 13 Oct

9:56 p.m.

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:15 PM, wrote:

hi, As you might already know , webkit-gtk and its dependency libsoup are always under heavy development . I added {libwebkit,libsoup}-newest PKGBUILDS to the AUR because libwebkit releases started to depend on development releases from libsoup(2.27.x) .

With gnome 2.28.x entering extra , the *-newest packages provide the same versions available in the official repos.

Should I ask for the deletion of those packages ? Or keep them around in case webkit starts to depend on libsoup 2.29.x ?

As the odd releases indicate development versions how about calling it -unstable instead of -newest? That way you can just jump from .27 to .29. It probably doesn't take long before 2.29.1 is released. Ronald

Nezmer＠allurelinux.org

10:06 p.m.

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:56:00PM +0200, Ronald van Haren wrote:

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:15 PM, wrote:

...
hi, As you might already know , webkit-gtk and its dependency libsoup are always under heavy development . I added {libwebkit,libsoup}-newest PKGBUILDS to the AUR because libwebkit releases started to depend on development releases from libsoup(2.27.x) .

With gnome 2.28.x entering extra , the *-newest packages provide the same versions available in the official repos.

Should I ask for the deletion of those packages ? Or keep them around in case webkit starts to depend on libsoup 2.29.x ?

As the odd releases indicate development versions how about calling it -unstable instead of -newest? That way you can just jump from .27 to .29. It probably doesn't take long before 2.29.1 is released.

Ronald I called them newest because there was no indication the webkit releases were considered unstable upstream.

Anyway , If you think renaming to *-unstable is the best practice , please delete the *-newest ones .

Ronald van Haren

10:10 p.m.

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:06 AM, wrote:

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:56:00PM +0200, Ronald van Haren wrote:

...
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:15 PM, wrote:

...
hi, As you might already know , webkit-gtk and its dependency libsoup are always under heavy development . I added {libwebkit,libsoup}-newest PKGBUILDS to the AUR because libwebkit releases started to depend on development releases from libsoup(2.27.x) .

With gnome 2.28.x entering extra , the *-newest packages provide the same versions available in the official repos.

Should I ask for the deletion of those packages ? Or keep them around in case webkit starts to depend on libsoup 2.29.x ?

As the odd releases indicate development versions how about calling it -unstable instead of -newest? That way you can just jump from .27 to .29. It probably doesn't take long before 2.29.1 is released.

Ronald I called them newest because there was no indication the webkit releases were considered unstable upstream.

Anyway , If you think renaming to *-unstable is the best practice , please delete the *-newest ones .

mmm I guess I was mainly talking about the libsoup package. I deleted that one, the webkit-newest package can probably stay for the moment if you think it will depend on an unstable libsoup package in the near future. Ronald

Nezmer＠allurelinux.org

10:16 p.m.

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:10:42AM +0200, Ronald van Haren wrote:

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:06 AM, wrote:

...
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:56:00PM +0200, Ronald van Haren wrote:

...
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:15 PM, wrote:

...
hi, As you might already know , webkit-gtk and its dependency libsoup are always under heavy development . I added {libwebkit,libsoup}-newest PKGBUILDS to the AUR because libwebkit releases started to depend on development releases from libsoup(2.27.x) .

With gnome 2.28.x entering extra , the *-newest packages provide the same versions available in the official repos.

Should I ask for the deletion of those packages ? Or keep them around in case webkit starts to depend on libsoup 2.29.x ?

As the odd releases indicate development versions how about calling it -unstable instead of -newest? That way you can just jump from .27 to .29. It probably doesn't take long before 2.29.1 is released.

Ronald I called them newest because there was no indication the webkit releases were considered unstable upstream.

Anyway , If you think renaming to *-unstable is the best practice , please delete the *-newest ones .

mmm I guess I was mainly talking about the libsoup package. I deleted that one, the webkit-newest package can probably stay for the moment if you think it will depend on an unstable libsoup package in the near future.

Ronald Makes sense . Thanks .

5309

Age (days ago)

5309

Last active (days ago)

Download

4 comments

2 participants

tags

participants (2)

Nezmer＠allurelinux.org
Ronald van Haren