[aur-general] Please delete my package "gobby-dev"
Hey, please delete my package "gobby-dev" (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=27325) in AUR because somebody finally packaged gobby in the dev version for community and now my package is redundant. -- Sven-Hendrik
On 03/06/10 21:19, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
Hey, please delete my package "gobby-dev" (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=27325) in AUR because somebody finally packaged gobby in the dev version for community and now my package is redundant.
-- Sven-Hendrik
Done.
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Evangelos Foutras <foutrelis@gmail.com> wrote:
On 03/06/10 21:19, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
Hey, please delete my package "gobby-dev" (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=27325) in AUR because somebody finally packaged gobby in the dev version for community and now my package is redundant.
As a past maintainer of gobby all I can say is that 0.4.93 is UNSTABLE .. the last stable version is 0.4.12 which IMO is where our gobby binary package should be .. I will send a mail to sergej to see his thoughts. -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Arch Linux Trusted User Linux Counter: #359909 http://www.angvp.com
On 04.06.2010 00:44, Angel Velásquez wrote:
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Evangelos Foutras <foutrelis@gmail.com> wrote:
On 03/06/10 21:19, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
Hey, please delete my package "gobby-dev" (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=27325) in AUR because somebody finally packaged gobby in the dev version for community and now my package is redundant.
As a past maintainer of gobby all I can say is that 0.4.93 is UNSTABLE .. the last stable version is 0.4.12 which IMO is where our gobby binary package should be ..
I will send a mail to sergej to see his thoughts.
0.4.93 is pretty good for me. I think 0.4.12 is almost unusable (no undo/redo). I like the decision of making -dev the standard version.
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 6:33 AM, Sven-Hendrik Haase <sh@lutzhaase.com> wrote:
On 04.06.2010 00:44, Angel Velásquez wrote:
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Evangelos Foutras <foutrelis@gmail.com> wrote:
On 03/06/10 21:19, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
Hey, please delete my package "gobby-dev" (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=27325) in AUR because somebody finally packaged gobby in the dev version for community and now my package is redundant.
As a past maintainer of gobby all I can say is that 0.4.93 is UNSTABLE .. the last stable version is 0.4.12 which IMO is where our gobby binary package should be ..
I will send a mail to sergej to see his thoughts.
0.4.93 is pretty good for me. I think 0.4.12 is almost unusable (no undo/redo). I like the decision of making -dev the standard version.
Hmm 0.4.12 as I said is the *stable* version, 0.4.93 is the _experimental_ one, maybe 0.4.12 version lack of features that gobby 0.5.0 will have (0.4.9X branch is suposed to be the next 0.5.0 release IIRC when it will be finished, once again is a non-stable software). I don't like the idea of packaging experimental stuff, 0.4.93 is a snapshot of -not yet finished- software, but it's just my opinion. Thoughts of other Devs/TU/Users are apreciated :). -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Arch Linux Trusted User Linux Counter: #359909 http://www.angvp.com
-----Original Message-----
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 08:19:04 +0200 Subject: Re: [aur-general] Please delete my package "gobby-dev" From: Angel Velásquez <angvp@archlinux.com.ve> To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)" <aur-general@archlinux.org>
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 6:33 AM, Sven-Hendrik Haase <sh@lutzhaase.com> wrote:
On 04.06.2010 00:44, Angel Velásquez wrote:
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Evangelos Foutras <foutrelis@gmail.com> wrote: >>
On 03/06/10 21:19, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
Hey, please delete my package "gobby-dev" (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=27325) in AUR because somebody >>>> finally packaged gobby in the dev version for community and now my >>>> package is redundant.
As a past maintainer of gobby all I can say is that 0.4.93 is UNSTABLE >> .. the last stable version is 0.4.12 which IMO is where our gobby >> binary package should be ..
I will send a mail to sergej to see his thoughts.
0.4.93 is pretty good for me. I think 0.4.12 is almost unusable (no undo/redo). I like the decision of making -dev the standard version.
Hmm 0.4.12 as I said is the *stable* version, 0.4.93 is the _experimental_ one, maybe 0.4.12 version lack of features that gobby 0.5.0 will have (0.4.9X branch is suposed to be the next 0.5.0 release IIRC when it will be finished, once again is a non-stable software).
I don't like the idea of packaging experimental stuff, 0.4.93 is a snapshot of -not yet finished- software, but it's just my opinion.
Thoughts of other Devs/TU/Users are apreciated :).
-- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Arch Linux Trusted User Linux Counter: #359909 http://www.angvp.com
Hello Angel, generally spoken you are right, but we should allow exceptions from that rule. We had an emacs-cvs package for years because that was the one people really used and despite being build from CVS it was damned stable. How long does "release" 0.4.93 exist? If was not changed for long, we can consider it stable. The maintainer should be able to decide this. Regards Stefan
Hello Angel,
generally spoken you are right, but we should allow exceptions from that rule. We had an emacs-cvs package for years because that was the one people really used and despite being build from CVS it was damned stable.
Yes but 0.4.12 was released after 0.4.93 .. they are handling the version number system in a strange way. See [1]
How long does "release" 0.4.93 exist? If was not changed for long, we can consider it stable. The maintainer should be able to decide this.
Release 0.4.93 exist since 20-12-2009, 8 days later they released a new _stable_ version (28-12-2009), as I said, the way that they are using to handling their version number is not correct at all, and it tends to confuse people, saying that 0.4.12 it was out-of-date. 0.4.93 uses libinfinity and split ot the net6 package .. net6 which still in [community] its for 0.4.12 at this moment doing nothing (because isn't required for other software) .. I am against update to 0.4.93, as I said, is not a stable release and they're still development stable releases under 0.4.XX branch and unstable into 0.4.9X branch (as you see this is kinda confusing).. This is not the case from emacs, in this case, should be more like the php case .. 5.2 vs 5.3 .. Copying again to sergej [1] http://gobby.0x539.de/trac/ Regards -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Arch Linux Trusted User Linux Counter: #359909 http://www.angvp.com
Release 0.4.93 exist since 20-12-2009, 8 days later they released a new _stable_ version (28-12-2009), as I said, the way that they are using to handling their version number is not correct at all, and it tends to confuse people, saying that 0.4.12 it was out-of-date.
0.4.93 uses libinfinity and split ot the net6 package .. net6 which still in [community] its for 0.4.12 at this moment doing nothing (because isn't required for other software) .. I am against update to 0.4.93, as I said, is not a stable release and they're still development stable releases under 0.4.XX branch and unstable into 0.4.9X branch (as you see this is kinda confusing).. This is not the case from emacs, in this case, should be more like the php case .. 5.2 vs 5.3 ..
Copying again to sergej
Hi, rolling back to 0.4.12. Thanks
On 06/07/2010 01:00 PM, Sergej Pupykin wrote:
Release 0.4.93 exist since 20-12-2009, 8 days later they released a new _stable_ version (28-12-2009), as I said, the way that they are using to handling their version number is not correct at all, and it tends to confuse people, saying that 0.4.12 it was out-of-date.
0.4.93 uses libinfinity and split ot the net6 package .. net6 which still in [community] its for 0.4.12 at this moment doing nothing (because isn't required for other software) .. I am against update to 0.4.93, as I said, is not a stable release and they're still development stable releases under 0.4.XX branch and unstable into 0.4.9X branch (as you see this is kinda confusing).. This is not the case from emacs, in this case, should be more like the php case .. 5.2 vs 5.3 ..
Copying again to sergej
Hi,
rolling back to 0.4.12.
Thanks
Can I get back my gobby-dev package? :(
On 08.06.2010 01:06, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
On 06/07/2010 01:00 PM, Sergej Pupykin wrote:
Release 0.4.93 exist since 20-12-2009, 8 days later they released a new _stable_ version (28-12-2009), as I said, the way that they are using to handling their version number is not correct at all, and it tends to confuse people, saying that 0.4.12 it was out-of-date.
0.4.93 uses libinfinity and split ot the net6 package .. net6 which still in [community] its for 0.4.12 at this moment doing nothing (because isn't required for other software) .. I am against update to 0.4.93, as I said, is not a stable release and they're still development stable releases under 0.4.XX branch and unstable into 0.4.9X branch (as you see this is kinda confusing).. This is not the case from emacs, in this case, should be more like the php case .. 5.2 vs 5.3 ..
Copying again to sergej
Hi,
rolling back to 0.4.12.
Thanks
Can I get back my gobby-dev package? :(
Please? :(
Well, in some cases like Audacity we package the "beta" version 1.3.x, even though there also a stable branch 1.2.x ... admittedly the last stable update was released 3-4 years ago and the 1.3.x branch was still called "beta" back then., (1.2.6, which was released Nov. 2006 as far as I can tell, which is indeed after 1.3.2 and earlier were released.) But I think, even when the upstream releases stable-branch updates with version numbers, we should allow ourselves to take a case-by-case basis. (Or provide multiple options... I guess the Arch way to do this is to put the less-popular options in AUR under a different package-name... hmm...)
participants (7)
-
Angel Velásquez
-
Evangelos Foutras
-
Ionuț Bîru
-
Isaac Dupree
-
Sergej Pupykin
-
stefan-husmann＠t-online.de
-
Sven-Hendrik Haase