On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:41 AM, Maxime Gauduin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Sergej Pupykin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Hi, >> >> Bartłomiej Piotrowski proposed packaging standard changes: >> if there are 2 versions of some package foobar, then older version (1.0 >> for example) must be named as foobar1-1.0 and newer version (2.0 for >> example) must be named as foobar-2.0. >> >> I did not see such rule yet on >> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_ >> Standards#Package_naming >> page, but my package openjpeg2 was silently removed with this reason >> however there are gtk* and wxgtk* packages that also violate this >> rule. >> >> I insist on giving me proof-link for this rule, including this rule >> into wiki >> (https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_ >> Standards#Package_naming) >> and renaming all packages according this rule. >> >> Or just leave it as is and stop dropping my packages. >> >> For more info see: >> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/38016 >> >> I would change that rule a bit, because wxgtk is a special case. The 2.9 > branch is a devel branch, keeping wxgtk for the stable branch and adding a > suffix for the devel branch makes sense. Speaking of wxgtk, now that 3.0.0 > is out, we will most likely need to get rid of wxgtk29 and create a legacy > wxgtk28 package. > > Exact. I was waiting so that more packages work with the new wxgtk. I'll start the rebuild in January after the holidays. Eric > Anyway, imho the rule should be: use plain name for the latest stable > release, and add the appropriate suffix (usually 1 or 2 digits) for any > other release. > > Cheers, > -- > Maxime >
