[aur-general] How should *-devel packages generally be handled?

Jan Steffens jan.steffens at gmail.com
Wed Mar 16 01:36:20 EDT 2011

2011/3/16 Ng Oon-Ee <ngoonee at gmail.com>:
> Package foo exists in [extra], and foo-devel in the AUR.
> foo-devel is obviously based off unstable tarball releases (otherwise it
> would be foo-git, foo-svn, foo-hg or similar).
> So let's say foo is at version 4.0 (stable), should foo-devel stay at
> 3.9 (the last beta/rc/unstable release) or update to 4.0?
> Just a general question. My gnucash-devel package is currently pretty
> much identical to the one in [extra], and it does seem a bit unnecessary
> because the project itself does not currently have unstable releases.

I don't think we need a policy here. Let the maintainer decide. If
they want to spend time keeping -devel up to date with the stable
releases, it's their decision. The users can switch to another package
if they want.

So anything is fine. Even removing it.

More information about the aur-general mailing list