[aur-general] Duplicate Package Names

[Cilyan Olowen]

Hello

I bring this discussion up again, because to me the problem of
official out-of-date packages is still not solved. I will take the
example of clanlib. Here are the informations of the package :
clanlib 0.8.0-1
Architecture:  	i686
Repository: 	Extra
Description: 	A multi-platform game development library
Upstream URL: 	http://www.clanlib.org/
Maintainer: 	None
LastUpdated: 	2008-09-13
Required By (0):
The last version is 0.8.1 released on March 12 2008. Without anyone to
contact, I filed a bug which was closed "Reason for closing: Not a
bug". I understand the reason for closing, but I feel that I have no
other mean to discuss this. There is no information about the reason
of out-of-date so long. There is no developer to contact.

It seems to me that the official packages miss an official discussion
page, like there is in the AUR. This would be a place where maintainer
could explain why a package is still out-of-date (The package needs
another package which conflicts with a main package), get user
feedback, be posted contributed corrected PKGBUILD, and whatsoever

2008/10/17 Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com>:
> I don't think discussion is the issue here. The issue is manpower and
> desire and real life and all that fun stuff. If instead of people
> saying "OMG out of date" they would send us successful testing results
> from their side.

If it was possible to say to the community what goes wrong for a
package, this would be a gain of time. I could pretty well make this
new version (this works for precompiled version) but this would be in
a particular situation, and I imagine that here there is a trick. So
sending a new PKGBUILD (with probably only the version changed) would
be helpless.

2008/10/17 Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com>:
> Regardless, this is the aur list, and we shouldn't be talking about
> this. Suffice to say that if a user has a "faster update" to a
> package, it's a better idea to mail it along to the official
> maintainer instead of putting it in the AUR

There is no profile for developers, so it is hard to find the
corresponding mail address.

It is true that for this case I am very temped to post a duplicate
package on the AUR. My package needs the new version and I don't want
to wait for the sky to fall over my head. It is probably the case for
the other duplicate packages.

Cilyan Olowen