[aur-general] Changes in Arch packaging standards

[Eric Bélanger]

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:41 AM, Maxime Gauduin <alucryd at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Sergej Pupykin <ml at sergej.pp.ru> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Bartłomiej Piotrowski proposed packaging standard changes:
>> 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.
>>
>> I did not see such rule yet on
>> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_
>> Standards#Package_naming
>> page, but my package openjpeg2 was silently removed with this reason
>> however there are gtk* and wxgtk* packages that also violate this
>> rule.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Or just leave it as is and stop dropping my packages.
>>
>> For more info see:
>> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/38016
>>
>>  I would change that rule a bit, because wxgtk is a special case. The 2.9
> branch is a devel branch, keeping wxgtk for the stable branch and adding a
> suffix for the devel branch makes sense. Speaking of wxgtk, now that 3.0.0
> is out, we will most likely need to get rid of wxgtk29 and create a legacy
> wxgtk28 package.
>
>
Exact. I was waiting so that more packages work with the new wxgtk. I'll
start the rebuild in January after the holidays.

Eric



> Anyway, imho the rule should be: use plain name for the latest stable
> release, and add the appropriate suffix (usually 1 or 2 digits) for any
> other release.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Maxime
>