[aur-general] lib32-libx264 or lib32-lib264-stable-git?

Bartłomiej Piotrowski bpiotrowski at archlinux.org
Wed Jun 24 15:43:26 UTC 2015

On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:00:14 +0300
Νῖκος Θεοδώρου <ntheo1979 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello.
> Up until a few months ago, the sources were stored in a ftp server, so
> naming was simple.
> Then they only kept git ("master" and "stable"). The [extra] package
> [1] pulls from git, but it's called "libx264". Initially I called the
> lib32 version lib32-libx264 as well, but then gS644 in the comments
> suggested the stable-git suffix and I went on with it (the TUs didn't
> raise an objection at the merge request). Now JonnyJD raises the
> naming issue again. The whole discussion can be found at the
> package's comments [2].
> To be honest, I'm not sure how the package should be named, so I am
> asking here for a final judgement on the matter.
> [1]
> http://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/trunk/PKGBUILD?h=packages/x264
> [2] http://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/lib32-libx264-stable-git/
> Thank you.
> Nikos


The [extra] package is always set to some particular commit from stable
branch. I don't have particular opinion on your question, but as a
user, I would expect lib32-libx264 to provide the same commit as the
repositories counterpart do, -git to track master branch and
-foobar-git to track commits in foobar branch.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/attachments/20150624/d73bf9af/attachment.asc>

More information about the aur-general mailing list