[aur-general] binary uzbl package(s)?

Dieter Plaetinck dieter at plaetinck.be
Sat Dec 5 14:40:14 EST 2009

On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 18:01:40 +0100
Stefan Husmann <stefan-husmann at t-online.de> wrote:

> Hello,
> I think more important than the form the sources are hosted (git or
> tarball) is if the program is to be considered stable. To me a
> program is stable if new versions do only deliver bug fixes and minor
> improvements. I think this is the case here. So I would prefer to use
> the PKGBUILD in AUR over a to-be-written PKGBUILD for some tarball
> version, also because the former is the one which has 427 votes.

Development is quite fast-paced, with a new
release every few weeks, often bringing big changes.  api, config
syntax etc are definitely not stable yet.
It makes maintaining packages a bit more work, but IMHO it doesn't
change anything to the pro's and cons of official binary packages vs git
packages in AUR, so I think a binary package is useful.

But Bîru has told me he wants to maintain packages in community, so my
problem is solved.


More information about the aur-general mailing list