[aur-general] TU Application: Dave Reisner
d at falconindy.com
Thu Dec 2 17:20:14 CET 2010
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 05:13:56PM +0100, Cédric Girard wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Xyne <xyne at archlinux.ca> wrote:
> > Packages that are built from vcs but which are based on some form of
> > upstream
> > "release" should not include the tag in the package name.
> > I think the simplest rule of thumb would be that if the same PKGBUILD
> > generates
> > different binary packages depending on when makepkg was run, then it should
> > include the suffix in the name.
> These two rules are not the same. For instance the package xbmc-svn  is
> based on fixed svn version that does not corresponds to any "release"
> upstream. It is just tested svn revisions (by the packager) as not every
> revisions are usable.
>  http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=20156
So doesn't that just mean that we have some packages currently in
existance which break the guideline we're trying to establish? I propose
that this particular package is named incorrectly, and would be better
off as xbmc-devel.
More information about the aur-general