On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:35 PM, WorMzy Tykashi <wormzy.tyka...@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