-live is misleading as well
well, as I mentioned, -live was somehow intended to be a joke
and thanks for the thread digging!
]]>Bottom line was, everyone disagrees with each other
]]>-dev will be confusing to a lot of users because most distros use foo-dev or foo-devel to indicate that it includes various development files for foo rather than being a the bleeding-edge developmental version of foo.
Yes, you are right, I did not think about that.
Even though I don't really agree that more information is necessarily better (I don't see a real benefit in knowing the type of version control system), I can't think of anything better. -live is misleading as well, at least, it sounds as if one doesn't really install anything (like with a live cd).
So, I guess you convinced me that the current solution is the best one...
]]>Also, it does give me a little tidbit of information about the given project I didn't have before.
indeed.
plus, it gives information that data will be pulled out straight from a live tree, while -dev could just be a tgz development snapshot.
and it also gives information on the protocol used before actually pulling it. some ports/protocols are filtered by nasty admins, so I just say 'well, it won't go through, I'll try that later' instead of 'oh, f*k it interrupted! let's see, why? *scroll* ah, cvs? oh yeah, it's filtered...' and so much for the stress meter. well, exagerating a bit, but you see the point: it conveys some extra interesting information.
and people bothering with -cvs,-svn,-git builds should know what that means, and by 'means' I mean 'implies', that is it's _live_ dev.
well then, what about a -live suffix (J/K)
]]>-dev will be confusing to a lot of users because most distros use foo-dev or foo-devel to indicate that it includes various development files for foo rather than being a the bleeding-edge developmental version of foo.
+1 more ...
also i think -dev* in some cases refer to released (unstable) stuff, like beta versions as it is used now, listen-devel for example ..
-dev will be confusing to a lot of users because most distros use foo-dev or foo-devel to indicate that it includes various development files for foo rather than being a the bleeding-edge developmental version of foo.
totally agreed, -dev suffix is just like diff between jre and jdk.
]]>One of the nice things about Arch is the fact that you have most development versions available, which are usually labeled according to the revision control system that is used (foobar-svn, foobar-cvs, foobar-git,...). As this information is not really of any use to the person who installs the package, I suggest to use a common suffix, e.g. -dev, to indicate the status. This would increase the consistency of package naming a lot and would - as a side effect - allow to browse through all development packages easily by searching for '-dev'.
What do you think?
]]>