On Thu 02 Dec 2010 10:39 -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote: > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Ray Rashif <sc...@archlinux.org> wrote: > > My original view had been that a package would be simply called 'package' > regardless of whether or not a source tarball was offered. Then if someone > makes a version that builds against upstream VCS, that package would be > called package-vcs. > > In light of this new discussion however, I feel like the proper policy is to > name a package without a suffix if there is a 'versioned release', no matter > where this comes from (source tarball, vcs tag, etc.). Then the converse is > that if a package has *no release* but just a rolling development trunk, > then it is given a suffix.
I agree, but shouldn't this topic be in a separate thread?