Excerpts from Det's message of 2010-09-11 19:36:05 +0200: > On 9/10/10, Lukáš Jirkovský <l.jirkov...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 10 September 2010 13:09, Evangelos Foutras <foutre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Sorry, I'm having a hard time deciding what goes and what stays. > >> > >> If another TU wants to jump in and handle this request, please do. > > > > Wow, what a mess. > > > > For now I would certainly leave the songbird-svn. It has correct name > > and it seems to be quite good PKGBUILD. > > > > I'd prefer if the songbird-auto-nightly was renamed to the > > songbird-nightly-bin and then removed. > > > > I think songbird should be removed, because it's in fact the same as > > songbird-svn. I don't see any reason to keep it because it seems that > > they do not release any source tarballs. However it has just too much > > votes to remove it. > > > > Lukas > > > > Jesus, well the nicest thing to do then would be to first replace > "songbird-nightly" with "songbird-auto-nightly" and _then_ delete: > "songbird", "songbird-auto-nightly" and "songbird-nightly-bin". > > "Songbird" does indeed have a lot of votes, which is just too bad, but > if "the binary version of Songbird" has to be "songbird-bin", then > "the SVN version of Songbird" has to also be "songbird-svn"... unless > that logic would need the developers to release a versioned source > too... which they don't. > > Chrissake, > Det
I know little about it, but if I'm not wrong, songbird for linux isn't developed anymore? So what does it matter? -- Philipp -- "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
