[aur-general] UnMerge request mpv-player-git vs. mpv-git
alucryd at gmail.com
Sat Sep 7 13:31:23 EDT 2013
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Jerome Leclanche <adys.wh at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm admittedly having trouble understanding the use of such a package
> (over simply using -git libs, which, despite what you claim, seldom
> break existing package — and if they do, well, stop using -git
> packages in the first place). Is it useful to so many people that it
> has to be on the AUR? The package had little activity at all.
> Should we start having this type of packages for a bunch more apps?
> Anyway, regardless of all that, "mpv-player-git" is a terrible name for it.
> J. Leclanche
> On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Rob Til Freedmen
> <rob.til.freedman at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Merging those packages doesn't make sense at all!
> > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/mpv-git/
> > This package uses dynamically linked system libs
> > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/mpv-player-git/
> > This package uses statically linked libs from git
> > It has also lots of comments to guide users in building & experimenting.
> > If you're really want to take choice from users,
> > this would be a better package for merging with mpv-player-git
> > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/mpv-build-git/
People using git packages should expect and know how to deal with breakage.
Packages like mpv-player-git or mpv-build-git do not belong in AUR, they
belong to the 'extremely specialized' category mentioned on . Your
argument about 'taking choices from users' does not stand, 3 votes iirc
means only 2 people apart from you used it, same with mpv-build-git which
has 2 votes. There are but a few people who may want statically linked
libs, and people who know they need this should be smart enough to write
their own PKGBUILD locally, there's no point in guiding them. I'll be
deleting mpv-build-git too, and btw, those are terrible names indeed.
More information about the aur-general