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

[Det]

On 3/16/11, Ng Oon-Ee <ngoonee at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

At least when I'm using -dev(el) packages I do so to get the most
bleeding edge releases of that specific software (decluding svn/hg/git
versions - unless recommended by upstream). I don't even understand
how could anybody cope with just having unstable releases :). I myself
quickly get annoyed by the crashes/lagginess/whatever.

But as Jan said, it's a preference question decided by the maintainer (you).

   Det