[aur-general] btrfs-progs packages

[WorMzy Tykashi]

As it stands, the new testing/btrfs-progs is building the same tools as the
btrfs-progs-git PKGBUILD (albeit with !staticlibs), extra/btrfs-progs is
still quite behind.

Once the testing package hits extra, btrfs-progs-git will be redundant (at
least until Chris pulls in more commits). I guess the worth of
btrfs-progs-git depends on how often Tom is planning on updating the commit
ref in the official PKGBUILD and/or how often Chris pulls in changes to his
tree.


On 17 September 2013 10:55, Sébastien Luttringer <seblu at seblu.net> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:35 PM, WorMzy Tykashi
> <wormzy.tykashi at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi, I've submitted two new btrfs packages to the AUR:
> > btrfs-progs-unstable-integration [0] and
> > btrfs-progs-unstable-integration-git [1], and I'd like opinions on the
> > state of things:
> >
> > a) should btrfs-progs-git [2] should be merged with
> > btrfs-progs-unstable-integration-git, given that the latter is more true
> to
> > it's name as a -git package, and the former is more of a lagging stable
> > version of the "non-git" integration branch
> >
> > or
> >
> > b) should the non-git, btrfs-progs-unstable-integration package be
> dropped
> > in favour of the more stable btrfs-progs-git package
> >
> > or
> >
> > c) should all three packages remain
> >
> > or
> >
> > d) should the unstables be merged into one PKGBUILD with the option to
> let
> > the user choose between "stable" and "next" by setting a variable in it?
> >
> > or
> >
> > e) something else?
> >
> > Personally, I'm happy maintaining all three packages, but I'm aware that
> I
> > have just tripled the number of btrfs-progs packages in the AUR, which
> may
> > cause some confusion with some users, and may be considered littering the
> > AUR.
> >
> > Some further information which may be useful:
> >
> > btrfs-progs-git = stable, but stale (no commits since July 5th)
> > btrfs-progs-unstable-integration = unstable, but known to build, snapshot
> > of the integration-next (git) branch
> > btrfs-progs-unstable-integration-git = most unstable, actively committed
> > to, may not always build
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> > [0] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/btrfs-progs-unstable-integration/
> > [1]
> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/btrfs-progs-unstable-integration-git/
> > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/btrfs-progs-git/
>
> I don't think we need more than a git package (with Mason tree).
> Our official package is already a git snapshot and Tom asked[1] to change
> that.
>
> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org/msg26611.html
>
> --
> Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer
> https://www.seblu.net
> GPG: 0x2072D77A
>