Re: [aur-general] How should *-devel packages generally be handled?
2011/3/16 Ng Oon-Ee ngoo...@gmail.com: So let's say foo is at version 4.0 (stable), should foo-devel stay at 3.9 (the last beta/rc/unstable release) or update to 4.0? Stay at the last unstable release.
Re: [aur-general] How should *-devel packages generally be handled?
On 3/16/11, Ng Oon-Ee ngoo...@gmail.com wrote: Package foo exists in [extra], and foo-devel in the AUR. foo-devel is obviously based off unstable tarball releases (otherwise it would be foo-git, foo-svn, foo-hg or similar). So let's say foo is at version 4.0 (stable), should foo-devel stay at 3.9 (the last beta/rc/unstable release) or update to 4.0? Just a general question. My gnucash-devel package is currently pretty much identical to the one in [extra], and it does seem a bit unnecessary because the project itself does not currently have unstable releases. At least when I'm using -dev(el) packages I do so to get the most bleeding edge releases of that specific software (decluding svn/hg/git versions - unless recommended by upstream). I don't even understand how could anybody cope with just having unstable releases :). I myself quickly get annoyed by the crashes/lagginess/whatever. But as Jan said, it's a preference question decided by the maintainer (you). Det
[aur-general] How should *-devel packages generally be handled?
Package foo exists in [extra], and foo-devel in the AUR. foo-devel is obviously based off unstable tarball releases (otherwise it would be foo-git, foo-svn, foo-hg or similar). So let's say foo is at version 4.0 (stable), should foo-devel stay at 3.9 (the last beta/rc/unstable release) or update to 4.0? Just a general question. My gnucash-devel package is currently pretty much identical to the one in [extra], and it does seem a bit unnecessary because the project itself does not currently have unstable releases.
Re: [aur-general] How should *-devel packages generally be handled?
2011/3/16 Ng Oon-Ee ngoo...@gmail.com: Package foo exists in [extra], and foo-devel in the AUR. foo-devel is obviously based off unstable tarball releases (otherwise it would be foo-git, foo-svn, foo-hg or similar). So let's say foo is at version 4.0 (stable), should foo-devel stay at 3.9 (the last beta/rc/unstable release) or update to 4.0? Just a general question. My gnucash-devel package is currently pretty much identical to the one in [extra], and it does seem a bit unnecessary because the project itself does not currently have unstable releases. I don't think we need a policy here. Let the maintainer decide. If they want to spend time keeping -devel up to date with the stable releases, it's their decision. The users can switch to another package if they want. So anything is fine. Even removing it.
