Mpv-build-git use different reppsitory and build method. I've send new thread to unmerge mpv-build-git Greetings El 07/09/2013 19:31, "Maxime Gauduin" escribió:

On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Jerome Leclanche wrote:

...

I'm admittedly having trouble understanding the use of such a package (over simply using -git libs, which, despite what you claim, seldom break existing package — and if they do, well, stop using -git packages in the first place). Is it useful to so many people that it has to be on the AUR? The package had little activity at all. Should we start having this type of packages for a bunch more apps?

Anyway, regardless of all that, "mpv-player-git" is a terrible name for it. J. Leclanche

On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Rob Til Freedmen wrote:

...

Merging those packages doesn't make sense at all!

https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/mpv-git/ This package uses dynamically linked system libs

https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/mpv-player-git/ This package uses statically linked libs from git It has also lots of comments to guide users in building & experimenting.

If you're really want to take choice from users, this would be a better package for merging with mpv-player-git

https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/mpv-build-git/

People using git packages should expect and know how to deal with breakage. Packages like mpv-player-git or mpv-build-git do not belong in AUR, they belong to the 'extremely specialized' category mentioned on [1]. Your argument about 'taking choices from users' does not stand, 3 votes iirc means only 2 people apart from you used it, same with mpv-build-git which has 2 votes. There are but a few people who may want statically linked libs, and people who know they need this should be smart enough to write their own PKGBUILD locally, there's no point in guiding them. I'll be deleting mpv-build-git too, and btw, those are terrible names indeed.

Cheers,

[1]

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository#Sharing_and_mainta...

-- Maxime