[aur-general] VCS dupes in the AUR

Peter Lewis plewis at aur.archlinux.org
Thu Apr 14 11:19:13 EDT 2011

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011, J. W. Birdsong wrote:
> On 04/12/11 at 10:00pm, Stefan Husmann wrote:
> > On 12.04.2011 08:58, Peter Lewis wrote:
> > >Done a bit of research...
> > >
> > >On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Stefan Husmann wrote:
> > >>  irssi (VCS) * irssi-svn https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=6163 *
> > >>  irssi-git https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=25781
> > >
> > >These both seem "official", though the main website points to the SVN repo
> > >and not the git one. However, it seems many contributors are using git
> > >since it's easier to send in patches etc. I couldn't find out how often
> > >they're synced, but I assume it's pretty regular. So, it's probably worth
> > >either keeping both, or just going with git only.
> > >
> > >
> > I prefer maintaining svn-versions over git-versions in AUR, because the have
> > revision numbers as $pkgver, not just a date.
> > 
> > Regards Stefan
>  I maintain irssi-svn, but only picked it up some time ago because it needed
>  fix/updating.  So no big deal if y'all decide it should go.  I suppose as the
>  discussion on this has grown cold  I'll assume we're going to keep both?
>  Seem no real conscience was reached.  

It probably doesn't matter if we keep both, since both are official, as long as
both work. So long as maintainers don't feel that their efforts are wasted, that
is... (admittedly maintaining a -svn or -git package in the AUR requires minimal

>  I'll drop/delete it if needed.  JB

It's not needed, and given Stefan's message, some people will use it. It's up to
you, as a maintainer, I'd say. Do you have reasons for not using -git?


More information about the aur-general mailing list