> Anyway, imho the rule should be: use plain name for the latest stable
release, and add the appropriate suffix (usually 1 or 2 digits) for any
other release.
This is wonderfully simple and straightforward. It's also current practice.
Let's keep using it.
> There are basically 2 scenarios to consi
> Jerome Leclanche wrote:
>>Sensitive topic: Why doesn't arch support multiple versions for the
>>same packages?
>>Whenever it's brought up, there's always the answer that Arch is a
>>rolling release (and we're all happy with that). But pretty obviously
>>there are cases where multiple versions a
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:41 AM, Maxime Gauduin wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Sergej Pupykin wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Bartłomiej Piotrowski proposed packaging standard changes:
>> if there are 2 versions of some package foobar, then older version (1.0
>> for example) must be named
On 6 December 2013 17:25, Sergej Pupykin wrote:
> Bartłomiej Piotrowski proposed packaging standard changes:
Where is this proposal? I think he simply meant that it is the current practice.
> if there are 2 versions of some package foobar, then older version (1.0
> for example) must be named as
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Sergej Pupykin wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Bartłomiej Piotrowski proposed packaging standard changes:
> if there are 2 versions of some package foobar, then older version (1.0
> for example) must be named as foobar1-1.0 and newer version (2.0 for
> example) must be named as
On 12/06/13 at 10:22am, Jerome Leclanche wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
> > On 06.12.2013 10:45, Sergej Pupykin wrote:
> >> At Fri, 06 Dec 2013 09:42:11 +0001,
> >> Maxime Gauduin wrote:
> >>> I would chang
On 06.12.2013 11:31, Sergej Pupykin wrote:
> At Fri, 6 Dec 2013 10:22:35 +,
> Jerome Leclanche wrote:
>> Sensitive topic: Why doesn't arch support multiple versions for the
>> same packages?
> Another sensitive topic is removing packages without notification
> refering to nonexistent rule.
>
>
At Fri, 6 Dec 2013 10:22:35 +,
Jerome Leclanche wrote:
> Sensitive topic: Why doesn't arch support multiple versions for the
> same packages?
Another sensitive topic is removing packages without notification
refering to nonexistent rule.
WTF? :S
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
> On 06.12.2013 10:45, Sergej Pupykin wrote:
>> At Fri, 06 Dec 2013 09:42:11 +0001,
>> Maxime Gauduin wrote:
>>> I would change that rule a bit, because wxgtk is a special case. The
>>> 2.9
On 06.12.2013 10:45, Sergej Pupykin wrote:
> At Fri, 06 Dec 2013 09:42:11 +0001,
> Maxime Gauduin wrote:
>> I would change that rule a bit, because wxgtk is a special case. The
>> 2.9 branch is a devel branch, keeping wxgtk for the stable branch and
>> adding a suffix for the devel branch makes
At Fri, 06 Dec 2013 09:42:11 +0001,
Maxime Gauduin wrote:
>
> >
> I would change that rule a bit, because wxgtk is a special case. The
> 2.9 branch is a devel branch, keeping wxgtk for the stable branch and
> adding a suffix for the devel branch makes sense. Speaking of wxgtk,
> now that 3.0
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Sergej Pupykin wrote:
Hi,
Bartłomiej Piotrowski proposed packaging standard changes:
if there are 2 versions of some package foobar, then older version
(1.0
for example) must be named as foobar1-1.0 and newer version (2.0 for
example) must be named as fooba
Hi,
Bartłomiej Piotrowski proposed packaging standard changes:
if there are 2 versions of some package foobar, then older version (1.0
for example) must be named as foobar1-1.0 and newer version (2.0 for
example) must be named as foobar-2.0.
I did not see such rule yet on
https://wiki.archlinux.
13 matches
Mail list logo
