[aur-general] lib32-libx264 or lib32-lib264-stable-git?
Hello. Up until a few months ago, the sources were stored in a ftp server, so naming was simple. Then they only kept git ("master" and "stable"). The [extra] package [1] pulls from git, but it's called "libx264". Initially I called the lib32 version lib32-libx264 as well, but then gS644 in the comments suggested the stable-git suffix and I went on with it (the TUs didn't raise an objection at the merge request). Now JonnyJD raises the naming issue again. The whole discussion can be found at the package's comments [2]. To be honest, I'm not sure how the package should be named, so I am asking here for a final judgement on the matter. [1] http://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/trunk/PKGBUILD?h=pa... [2] http://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/lib32-libx264-stable-git/ Thank you. Nikos -- Νῖκος Θεοδώρου «Ἀγεωμέτρητος μηδεὶς εἰσίτω!»
On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:00:14 +0300 Νῖκος Θεοδώρου <ntheo1979@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello.
Up until a few months ago, the sources were stored in a ftp server, so naming was simple.
Then they only kept git ("master" and "stable"). The [extra] package [1] pulls from git, but it's called "libx264". Initially I called the lib32 version lib32-libx264 as well, but then gS644 in the comments suggested the stable-git suffix and I went on with it (the TUs didn't raise an objection at the merge request). Now JonnyJD raises the naming issue again. The whole discussion can be found at the package's comments [2].
To be honest, I'm not sure how the package should be named, so I am asking here for a final judgement on the matter.
[1] http://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/trunk/PKGBUILD?h=pa... [2] http://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/lib32-libx264-stable-git/
Thank you. Nikos
Nikos, The [extra] package is always set to some particular commit from stable branch. I don't have particular opinion on your question, but as a user, I would expect lib32-libx264 to provide the same commit as the repositories counterpart do, -git to track master branch and -foobar-git to track commits in foobar branch. Bartłomiej
Am 24.06.2015 um 17:43 schrieb Bartłomiej Piotrowski:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:00:14 +0300 Νῖκος Θεοδώρου <ntheo1979@gmail.com> wrote:
Then they only kept git ("master" and "stable"). The [extra] package [1] pulls from git, but it's called "libx264". Initially I called the lib32 version lib32-libx264 as well, but then gS644 in the comments suggested the stable-git suffix and I went on with it (the TUs didn't raise an objection at the merge request). Now JonnyJD raises the naming issue again. The whole discussion can be found at the package's comments [2].
To be honest, I'm not sure how the package should be named, so I am asking here for a final judgement on the matter.
[1] http://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/trunk/PKGBUILD?h=pa... [2] http://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/lib32-libx264-stable-git/
The [extra] package is always set to some particular commit from stable branch.
Well, yes. The AUR package autoupdates itself automatically with every build. The [extra] package is manually updated for the latest commit. So they mostly do have the same version except for the short time when one package is updated and one is not. So I could just create a lib32-libx264 and update the commit when [extra] updates (late update) and lib32-libx264-stable-git is updated automatically, but possibly earlier than libx264 in [extra] (early update). I can create lib32-libx264 as a clone of lib32-libx264-stable-git and switch to a specific commit. Unless Nikos/Gordon wants to do that. -- JonnyJD
On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 17:58:30 +0200 Johannes Dewender <arch@JonnyJD.net> wrote:
Am 24.06.2015 um 17:43 schrieb Bartłomiej Piotrowski:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:00:14 +0300 Νῖκος Θεοδώρου <ntheo1979@gmail.com> wrote:
Then they only kept git ("master" and "stable"). The [extra] package [1] pulls from git, but it's called "libx264". Initially I called the lib32 version lib32-libx264 as well, but then gS644 in the comments suggested the stable-git suffix and I went on with it (the TUs didn't raise an objection at the merge request). Now JonnyJD raises the naming issue again. The whole discussion can be found at the package's comments [2].
To be honest, I'm not sure how the package should be named, so I am asking here for a final judgement on the matter.
[1] http://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/trunk/PKGBUILD?h=pa... [2] http://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/lib32-libx264-stable-git/
The [extra] package is always set to some particular commit from stable branch.
Well, yes. The AUR package autoupdates itself automatically with every build. The [extra] package is manually updated for the latest commit. So they mostly do have the same version except for the short time when one package is updated and one is not.
So I could just create a lib32-libx264 and update the commit when [extra] updates (late update) and lib32-libx264-stable-git is updated automatically, but possibly earlier than libx264 in [extra] (early update).
I can create lib32-libx264 as a clone of lib32-libx264-stable-git and switch to a specific commit. Unless Nikos/Gordon wants to do that.
-- JonnyJD
Bartłomiej, thank you for the clarification. Johnny, no reason to get that complicated :-) Just make a new lib32-libx264 and keep it; I will ask for -stable-git to be merged into it later and we're good :-) -- Νῖκος Θεοδώρου «Ἀγεωμέτρητος μηδεὶς εἰσίτω!»
Am 25.06.2015 um 13:54 schrieb Νῖκος Θεοδώρου:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 17:58:30 +0200 Johannes Dewender <arch@JonnyJD.net> wrote:
Am 24.06.2015 um 17:43 schrieb Bartłomiej Piotrowski:
The [extra] package is always set to some particular commit from stable branch.
Well, yes. The AUR package autoupdates itself automatically with every build. The [extra] package is manually updated for the latest commit. So they mostly do have the same version except for the short time when one package is updated and one is not.
So I could just create a lib32-libx264 and update the commit when [extra] updates (late update) and lib32-libx264-stable-git is updated automatically, but possibly earlier than libx264 in [extra] (early update).
I can create lib32-libx264 as a clone of lib32-libx264-stable-git and switch to a specific commit. Unless Nikos/Gordon wants to do that.
Bartłomiej, thank you for the clarification.
Johnny, no reason to get that complicated :-) Just make a new lib32-libx264 and keep it; I will ask for -stable-git to be merged into it later and we're good :-)
Here we go: https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/lib32-libx264/ forked from lib32-libx264 and using a stable commit (forking is in not more difficult or work than to create a new repo) The version number is created the same as in libx264 except that I didn't add an epoch. I also added some code to automatically depend on libx264 with the same API version (144 currently). This explicitely does not need the exact same version, but a different API version between lib32 and normal breaks compiling packages using the lib32 version. For already compiled packages this is no issue though. @Gordon: I made you co-maintainer. -- JonnyJD
participants (3)
-
Bartłomiej Piotrowski
-
Johannes Dewender
-
Νῖκος Θεοδώρου