[aur-general] Changes in Arch packaging standards

Rashif Ray Rahman schiv at archlinux.org
Fri Dec 6 14:55:41 EST 2013

On 6 December 2013 17:25, Sergej Pupykin <ml at sergej.pp.ru> wrote:
> Bartłomiej Piotrowski proposed packaging standard changes:

Where is this proposal? I think he simply meant that it is the current practice.

> if there are 2 versions of some package foobar, then older version (1.0
> for example) must be named as foobar1-1.0 and newer version (2.0 for
> example) must be named as foobar-2.0.

That's the standard case, yes, since we strive to keep in line with
upstream. If upstream says "the latest release of FOO" and not "the
latest release of FOO2", we simply retain the name and relegate the
older version to a suffixed package.

> I did not see such rule yet on
> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards#Package_naming

It's not a documented rule, but you have seen this with Python.

> but my package openjpeg2 was silently removed with this reason

That is simply wrong. We are not known to do this, no matter how
inactive someone else is. A notification is always the right way.

> I insist on giving me proof-link for this rule, including this rule
> into wiki
> (https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards#Package_naming)
> and renaming all packages according this rule.

Sven's proposal should get that rolling.


More information about the aur-general mailing list