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

[Jan Steffens]

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.