On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:06 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:56:00PM +0200, Ronald van Haren wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:15 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > hi, > > > As you might already know , webkit-gtk and its dependency libsoup are > > > always under heavy development . I added {libwebkit,libsoup}-newest > > > PKGBUILDS to the AUR because libwebkit releases started to depend on > > > development releases from libsoup(2.27.x) . > > > > > > With gnome 2.28.x entering extra , the *-newest packages provide the > > > same versions available in the official repos. > > > > > > Should I ask for the deletion of those packages ? Or keep them around > in > > > case webkit starts to depend on libsoup 2.29.x ? > > > > > > > As the odd releases indicate development versions how about calling it > > -unstable instead of -newest? That way you can just jump from .27 to .29. > It > > probably doesn't take long before 2.29.1 is released. > > > > Ronald > I called them newest because there was no indication the webkit releases > were considered unstable upstream. > > Anyway , If you think renaming to *-unstable is the best practice , > please delete the *-newest ones . >
mmm I guess I was mainly talking about the libsoup package. I deleted that one, the webkit-newest package can probably stay for the moment if you think it will depend on an unstable libsoup package in the near future. Ronald
