[aur-general] TU Application: Dave Reisner

[Kaiting Chen]

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Ray Rashif <schiv at archlinux.org> wrote:

> On 2 December 2010 22:01, Kaiting Chen <kaitocracy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > A little tangent but from this page it seems to me that a '-git' or
> '-svn'
> > suffix should only be applied when there is a version of the package
> without
> > that suffix in the name; this is to differentiate between the 'stable'
> and
> > the 'development' version of the same package.
> >
> > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/VCS_PKGBUILD_Guidelines
> >
> > In his AUR page there are some packages with '-svn' or '-git' suffixes
> that
> > do not have non-suffixed counterparts. Is this correct? I would like to
> > update that wiki page to explain the convention more clearly. --Kaiting.
>
> OK, let me get this right. You mean that when for eg. a software only
> has a development source tree and no tarball, it should just be
> 'package' and not 'package-vcs'?
>
> If so, I don't think that would be proper. If a PKGBUILD fetches
> development sources, it should have a development suffix. However,
> exceptions can be made sometimes.
>
> Personally, I know of at least one upstream that does not directly
> offer a tarball, but instead has (or rather had) an SVN tag that
> distributors could check out. This package would then be named without
> a vcs suffix.
>

My original view had been that a package would be simply called 'package'
regardless of whether or not a source tarball was offered. Then if someone
makes a version that builds against upstream VCS, that package would be
called package-vcs.

In light of this new discussion however, I feel like the proper policy is to
name a package without a suffix if there is a 'versioned release', no matter
where this comes from (source tarball, vcs tag, etc.). Then the converse is
that if a package has *no release* but just a rolling development trunk,
then it is given a suffix. --Kaiting.

-- 
Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/