[aur-general] TU Application: Dave Reisner
xyne at archlinux.ca
Thu Dec 2 17:54:31 CET 2010
Peter Lewis wrote:
> On Thursday 02 December 2010 16:13:56 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.
> My view would be that if a package builds a semi-stable but unreleased version
> (from wherever) which has been selected by the packager or upstream, then the
> package should be suffixed by -dev, -prerelease -unstable or something
> For the removal of confusion, -git -svn etc. should *track* the VCS in my
For clarity, the only tag that I referred to in my previous post was the "vcs"
tag. I agree with your comments regarding other suffixes. I think my
proposed rule-of-thumb still works because the PKGBUILD for semi-stable
releases still generates a fixed binary package.
More information about the aur-general