Hey there,
I'm requesting that AUR package "protobuf2" be deleted because it is an updated version of "protobuf" in [community] with no added benefit. On a related note, the "protobuf" [community] package is without a maintainer, yet it would be very easy to maintain and update, any takers?
-- Sven-Hendrik
Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
Hey there,
I'm requesting that AUR package "protobuf2" be deleted because it is an updated version of "protobuf" in [community] with no added benefit. On a related note, the "protobuf" [community] package is without a maintainer, yet it would be very easy to maintain and update, any takers?
-- Sven-Hendrik
Unless I'm misreading something, you're incorrect... The version in [community] is at 2.0.3, while the version in AUR is 2.2.0.... Since their website lists 2.2.0 as the current stable version I'm inclined to leave the version in AUR alone. On the issue of the version in [community], it's possible that Geoffroy simply hasn't re-adopted it since the recent transition. However, if he doesn't wish to maintain it any further, I'll be happy to adopt it.
On 26.08.2009 03:06, Daniel J Griffiths wrote:
Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
Hey there,
I'm requesting that AUR package "protobuf2" be deleted because it is an updated version of "protobuf" in [community] with no added benefit. On a related note, the "protobuf" [community] package is without a maintainer, yet it would be very easy to maintain and update, any takers?
-- Sven-Hendrik
Unless I'm misreading something, you're incorrect... The version in [community] is at 2.0.3, while the version in AUR is 2.2.0.... Since their website lists 2.2.0 as the current stable version I'm inclined to leave the version in AUR alone. On the issue of the version in [community], it's possible that Geoffroy simply hasn't re-adopted it since the recent transition. However, if he doesn't wish to maintain it any further, I'll be happy to adopt it.
Isn't updating old official packages using AUR a no-no though? At least the wiki says so. All it takes is changing the version number of the [community] protobuf and maybe remove the --disable-static flag to make me happy as well.
Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
On 26.08.2009 03:06, Daniel J Griffiths wrote:
Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
Hey there,
I'm requesting that AUR package "protobuf2" be deleted because it is an updated version of "protobuf" in [community] with no added benefit. On a related note, the "protobuf" [community] package is without a maintainer, yet it would be very easy to maintain and update, any takers?
-- Sven-Hendrik
Unless I'm misreading something, you're incorrect... The version in [community] is at 2.0.3, while the version in AUR is 2.2.0.... Since their website lists 2.2.0 as the current stable version I'm inclined to leave the version in AUR alone. On the issue of the version in [community], it's possible that Geoffroy simply hasn't re-adopted it since the recent transition. However, if he doesn't wish to maintain it any further, I'll be happy to adopt it.
Isn't updating old official packages using AUR a no-no though? At least the wiki says so. All it takes is changing the version number of the [community] protobuf and maybe remove the --disable-static flag to make me happy as well.
That depends on the reason behind the update... Sometimes you might find a package in [community] that has been help back for a legitimate reason (dependency on a specific version or whatever), or on the other hand you might find an updated package in AUR that is built off an unstable release for the same reason. I don't know why the package in [community] is so out dated (have to ask Geoffery, but it doesn't look intentional to me).
aur-general@lists.archlinux.org