On 23/01/12 at 06:29pm, Alex Belanger wrote: > I'm not a Trusted User (they know much more stuff than I do about packages), > but in my opinion the name choices were wrong in the first place. > > You may want to go through the trouble of warning your users about the future > name changes, then ask here to make it happen. > > Of course it's annoying for the end-users but if its for the better... why > not. > > Most of us will quickly give a look in the AUR as soon as something break for > an explanation. Just don't forget to write about it in the comments. > > Btw, does the other maintainer knows? > > On Jan 23, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Psychedelic Squid <[email protected]> wrote: > > -- SNIP --
Yes, the wrong name choices are why both myself and timttmy would prefer them to be changed (he made a previous attempt at some time around the 26th of Oct last year[1], but somehow the package just ended up with a different version number. I'm not 100% sure why). I was hoping there was some way to have AUR wrappers understand that the packages had renamed, but I had suspected that there wasn't anything of that nature. Ah well. Anyway, I'll get on with making sure people are reasonably aware of the name change, then post a follow-up here once it should be safe to do the rename. Thanks for the help! [1] see the comments on <https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=42734>
