2012/3/26 Det <[email protected]>: > I guess this is a good summary of all the talk in virtualbox-sun's comment > section[1]. > > The reality here is that virtualbox-bin[2] has evolved into something _at > least_ as good as virtualbox-sun. While it's true that -sun is the original > one it's also the one with the incorrect naming, a bit slower updates (by a > day or so) and less votes (229 vs -bin's 3430). Because we can't justify > keeping duplicated work around just to make everybody happy, one of them has > to go. > > Even if -sun was to stay here the "better" stuff in -bin would have to be > implemented there first before the removal and the renaming. When put > together with the comment/vote merge it's starting to sound a bit pointless > (taken how we can just remove that one). > > I know what I'd do but it's not my decision: it's yours. > > [1] virtualbox-sun = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31996 > [2] virtualbox-bin = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=51727 > > Det
It is interesting how both provide the same version of the same softwaer, but have totally different depedency listed. For example, "kernel26-headers" for virtualbox-sun.
