[aur-general] Changes in Arch packaging standards
ichimonji10 at gmail.com
Sat Dec 7 15:30:10 EST 2013
> 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
This is wonderfully simple and straightforward. It's also current practice.
Let's keep using it.
> There are basically 2 scenarios to consider: parallel branches and
Can you give an example of the "parallel branches" scenario? Even Python 2,
a poster child for long-term backwards compatibility, is still a
"transition branch". I can't think of any examples of the "parallel
branches" scenario, and if that scenario does not exist, then this entire
debate over packaging standards is a moot point.
> I think a better policy would be to add a defining suffix to the
> main stable branch package when future incompatible branches may be
> and when the current main stable branch is clearly distinguished
The main stable branch of a project is *always* going to be incompatible
with future versions. Django 1.6 will be incompatible with 1.7; Lighttpd
1.4 will be incompatible with version 1.5; and so on. That's just the
nature of software.
More information about the aur-general