As it stands, the new testing/btrfs-progs is building the same tools as the btrfs-progs-git PKGBUILD (albeit with !staticlibs), extra/btrfs-progs is still quite behind.
Once the testing package hits extra, btrfs-progs-git will be redundant (at least until Chris pulls in more commits). I guess the worth of btrfs-progs-git depends on how often Tom is planning on updating the commit ref in the official PKGBUILD and/or how often Chris pulls in changes to his tree. On 17 September 2013 10:55, Sébastien Luttringer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:35 PM, WorMzy Tykashi > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, I've submitted two new btrfs packages to the AUR: > > btrfs-progs-unstable-integration [0] and > > btrfs-progs-unstable-integration-git [1], and I'd like opinions on the > > state of things: > > > > a) should btrfs-progs-git [2] should be merged with > > btrfs-progs-unstable-integration-git, given that the latter is more true > to > > it's name as a -git package, and the former is more of a lagging stable > > version of the "non-git" integration branch > > > > or > > > > b) should the non-git, btrfs-progs-unstable-integration package be > dropped > > in favour of the more stable btrfs-progs-git package > > > > or > > > > c) should all three packages remain > > > > or > > > > d) should the unstables be merged into one PKGBUILD with the option to > let > > the user choose between "stable" and "next" by setting a variable in it? > > > > or > > > > e) something else? > > > > Personally, I'm happy maintaining all three packages, but I'm aware that > I > > have just tripled the number of btrfs-progs packages in the AUR, which > may > > cause some confusion with some users, and may be considered littering the > > AUR. > > > > Some further information which may be useful: > > > > btrfs-progs-git = stable, but stale (no commits since July 5th) > > btrfs-progs-unstable-integration = unstable, but known to build, snapshot > > of the integration-next (git) branch > > btrfs-progs-unstable-integration-git = most unstable, actively committed > > to, may not always build > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > [0] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/btrfs-progs-unstable-integration/ > > [1] > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/btrfs-progs-unstable-integration-git/ > > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/btrfs-progs-git/ > > I don't think we need more than a git package (with Mason tree). > Our official package is already a git snapshot and Tom asked[1] to change > that. > > [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg26611.html > > -- > Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer > https://www.seblu.net > GPG: 0x2072D77A >
