You are not logged in.

#1 2006-10-11 15:45:43

shadowhand
Member
From: MN, USA
Registered: 2004-02-19
Posts: 1,142
Website

Revision Control (cvs/svn/git) Package Names?

Some of the devs feel that having -cvs, -svn, -git, etc is confusing to the users, and to maintainers. We are considering making the guideline to use a single extension to all packages. What do you think?

(Please vote Other if you like the current system, and say why.)

Poll runs for 14 days.


·¬»· i am shadowhand, powered by webfaction

Offline

#2 2006-10-11 15:51:47

codemac
Member
From: Cliche Tech Place
Registered: 2005-05-13
Posts: 790
Website

Re: Revision Control (cvs/svn/git) Package Names?

I think -scm would be good because RCS is a revision control system itself.

pacman -S rcs

if you don't believe me.

Offline

#3 2006-10-11 15:57:30

hehejo_
Member
From: Germany
Registered: 2005-10-08
Posts: 47
Website

Re: Revision Control (cvs/svn/git) Package Names?

I vote for -bep.
Cause that's the exact name of what you get: bleeding edge code without any warranty.
If you want the latest features, beeing bleeding edge -- you simply install <program>-bep. You can see it at a glance - bep!
If you want stable, tested running stuff - take <program>.

Offline

#4 2006-10-11 16:05:54

Cerebral
Forum Fellow
From: Waterloo, ON, CA
Registered: 2005-04-08
Posts: 3,108
Website

Re: Revision Control (cvs/svn/git) Package Names?

-snapshot?

Offline

#5 2006-10-11 16:15:44

xterminus
Member
From: Tacoma, WA, USA, Earth, Sol, M
Registered: 2005-10-30
Posts: 93

Re: Revision Control (cvs/svn/git) Package Names?

why not something simple to understand like -source or -dev ?

Offline

#6 2006-10-11 16:19:07

phrakture
Arch Overlord
From: behind you
Registered: 2003-10-29
Posts: 7,879
Website

Re: Revision Control (cvs/svn/git) Package Names?

I would say something like xterminus said.... -devel or -dev.... but those would be confusing as other distros use that suffix for headers and static libs and things....

Hmmm, I'm at a loss, but I voted other because I think the existing poll options are even more confusing than using -cvs or -svn.

Offline

#7 2006-10-11 16:20:22

liem
Member
Registered: 2006-04-29
Posts: 71
Website

Re: Revision Control (cvs/svn/git) Package Names?

Another vote for -snapshot.

Regarding bleeding edge: Using svn, cvs, git (whatever) doesn't mean it's bleeding edge, I've got a -hg (mercurial) PKGBUILD in AUR because it's the only way to get the source and it's quite stable. It may be a moot point: It's a 100 loc app, nothing much to break. ^^


Sebastian  A. Liem

Offline

#8 2006-10-11 16:49:50

pressh
Developer/TU
From: Netherlands
Registered: 2005-08-14
Posts: 1,719

Re: Revision Control (cvs/svn/git) Package Names?

-snapshot +1

Offline

#9 2006-10-11 16:55:26

shadowhand
Member
From: MN, USA
Registered: 2004-02-19
Posts: 1,142
Website

Re: Revision Control (cvs/svn/git) Package Names?

I'm just one voice, but I really don't like -snapshot.

1) It's long
2) It sounds too much like a backup of something
3) I don't think of a "checkout" as a "snapshot"

So far, I'm thinking that -dev makes the most sense, or, maybe we use -devel, just like we do for development releases.


·¬»· i am shadowhand, powered by webfaction

Offline

#10 2006-10-11 16:55:40

stavrosg
Member
From: Rhodes, Greece
Registered: 2005-05-01
Posts: 330
Website

Re: Revision Control (cvs/svn/git) Package Names?

Another one on -snapshot

Offline

#11 2006-10-11 17:02:25

soloport
Member
Registered: 2005-03-01
Posts: 442

Re: Revision Control (cvs/svn/git) Package Names?

Vote: -dev

Offline

#12 2006-10-11 17:36:39

AllTom
Member
Registered: 2006-01-02
Posts: 60
Website

Offline

#13 2006-10-11 19:56:00

elasticdog
Member
From: Washington, USA
Registered: 2005-05-02
Posts: 995
Website

Re: Revision Control (cvs/svn/git) Package Names?

I don't mind -dev or -devel, but there is the already established normal usage of those in other distros, so I could see that as confusing too.  Personally, I don't think that using -cvs, -svn, -git, etc. is a bad thing at all.  Those extensions are informative, and if you're looking at running bleeding edge software, I would imagine that you should already have an idea about version control and what those extensions mean.  By inventing another acronym, you may be simplifying the package names by providing consistency, but you're also taking away information inherent in the name itself and requiring all users to learn another "standard" which seems unnecessary.  Also, as liem points out, just because you have to grab the source directly from version control, doesn't mean you're running trunk, or bleeding edge, or whatever.

I say, keep things the way it is...it's not really that confusing.

Offline

#14 2006-10-11 20:06:52

rpgcyco
Member
From: Australia
Registered: 2005-09-27
Posts: 74

Re: Revision Control (cvs/svn/git) Package Names?

+1 for -dev

- Rpg Cyco

Offline

#15 2006-10-11 20:29:17

tomk
Forum Fellow
From: Ireland
Registered: 2004-07-21
Posts: 9,839

Re: Revision Control (cvs/svn/git) Package Names?

Just voted other, because rcs/scm are too literal, and bep is too made-up. Snapshot and dev/devel have established usage in other distros and other contexts, so I don't like them either.

I'd suggest moving away from the literal, and towards the descriptive, preferably a word, rather than another acronym. Something like -edge, or -now.

That's if we do it at all. After reading elasticdog's post again, I'm even more inclined to think that this is not a very Arch-like idea - it's a layer of additional detail obscuring the actual nature of the package.

Offline

#16 2006-10-11 21:14:07

MacWolf
Member
From: Germany
Registered: 2006-10-11
Posts: 4

Re: Revision Control (cvs/svn/git) Package Names?

I like the current system. I don't think -svn,-cvs,etc is confusing, so i would stay at this system.

but like tomk i would say "-edge" if we need a new "system".


however, current +1

Offline

#17 2006-10-11 21:22:57

Romashka
Forum Fellow
Registered: 2005-12-07
Posts: 1,054

Re: Revision Control (cvs/svn/git) Package Names?

I don't think -cvs/-svn/-git/etc is too confusing, but something like -snapshot or -devel (not -dev!) can be used. BTW, -devel is already used, for example opera-devel (because opera doesn't have CVS/SVN/Git).


to live is to die

Offline

#18 2006-10-11 21:47:29

shadowhand
Member
From: MN, USA
Registered: 2004-02-19
Posts: 1,142
Website

Re: Revision Control (cvs/svn/git) Package Names?

tomk wrote:

That's if we do it at all. After reading elasticdog's post again, I'm even more inclined to think that this is not a very Arch-like idea - it's a layer of additional detail obscuring the actual nature of the package.

True, it is a layer of obfuscation, but the question that prompted the possibility of a new name was "does it really matter what SCM package foo was built from?" Our answer was: no, it doesn't mean anything. Either way, you are getting a binary package built directly from developer source code, hence the proposal for a standardized name, rather than just tacking the name of the SCM on the end.


·¬»· i am shadowhand, powered by webfaction

Offline

#19 2006-10-11 22:21:10

Gullible Jones
Member
Registered: 2004-12-29
Posts: 4,863

Re: Revision Control (cvs/svn/git) Package Names?

-devel or -dev ++

Offline

#20 2006-10-12 00:18:36

codemac
Member
From: Cliche Tech Place
Registered: 2005-05-13
Posts: 790
Website

Re: Revision Control (cvs/svn/git) Package Names?

-snap ?

Offline

#21 2006-10-12 01:28:37

Snowman
Developer/Forum Fellow
From: Montreal, Canada
Registered: 2004-08-20
Posts: 5,212

Re: Revision Control (cvs/svn/git) Package Names?

I would keep the current system. It might be a bit confusing but all the proposed names are confusing ( -snapshot, -devel, -dev) or sound too artificial ( -scm, -bep, -edge, -now).

At least -cvs, -svn have a logical reason behing them: if a package use code checked out by a revision system, you add the corresponding suffix.  I don't recall any post on the forum/ML about what theses suffix meant. So the confusion is small( if there is one.)

BTW, snapshot is not a good idea because some projects release developement snapshots. It will just make users wonder why the -snapshot packages use a cvs/svn checkout instead of the snapshots.

Offline

#22 2006-10-12 07:04:11

iphitus
Forum Fellow
From: Melbourne, Australia
Registered: 2004-10-09
Posts: 4,927

Re: Revision Control (cvs/svn/git) Package Names?

shadowhand wrote:

Some of the devs feel that having -cvs, -svn, -git, etc is confusing to the users, and to maintainers. We are considering making the guideline to use a single extension to all packages. What do you think?

(Please vote Other if you like the current system, and say why.)

Poll runs for 14 days.

I dont see the need or purpose, it's simple a purely aesthetic change. If you as a maintainer are confused because a project uses a different scm.... well.....yeah....... -- im sure you aint.

As liem said, not all projects use it for unstable purposes either, so it just simply wouldnt work in that case.

James

Offline

#23 2006-10-12 08:40:17

Romashka
Forum Fellow
Registered: 2005-12-07
Posts: 1,054

Re: Revision Control (cvs/svn/git) Package Names?

I don't like -dev because of this
-devel, -snapshot or -snap is OK for me.
But, really, it's not so important to change -cvs/-svn/-git to something else.


to live is to die

Offline

#24 2006-10-12 08:44:49

Romashka
Forum Fellow
Registered: 2005-12-07
Posts: 1,054

Re: Revision Control (cvs/svn/git) Package Names?

Snowman wrote:

BTW, snapshot is not a good idea because some projects release developement snapshots. It will just make users wonder why the -snapshot packages use a cvs/svn checkout instead of the snapshots.

Good point.


to live is to die

Offline

#25 2006-10-12 08:55:29

pressh
Developer/TU
From: Netherlands
Registered: 2005-08-14
Posts: 1,719

Re: Revision Control (cvs/svn/git) Package Names?

Well, as both -snapshot, -dev and -devel is used by some project, and no other self explaining -* supplement is proposed, I assume we would better stay with the -cvs, -svn, etc like.
I guess, adding some self made abbreviation will not make it more clear, especially for people new to Arch.
Just a thought though.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB