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

Sigi · 2006-10-12 09:43:03

-devel +1

I don't think that a change is usefull, but if it gets changed, please change it to -devel. The other options are either misleading (like scm, edge), need to be explained to every new user (like bep) or are too long (-snapshot).

Lone_Wolf · 2006-10-12 13:11:27

shadowhand wrote:

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.

If this were solely about official packages, you would have a point.
However, there are also lots of cvs/svn/git packages in AUR.
Whatver we decide to do, it should be consistent and work both for all repos.

deficite · 2006-10-12 13:25:24

I voted other. Arch's philosophy is KISS. If the package is a CVS package, don't hide that from me. If a user would be confused with something so simple as cvs/svn/etc. then by using a different suffix you are not aiding that situation. It reminds me of how most n00b distros try to make themselves "easier". They hide the truth in billions of layers of abstractions and make things even more complicated in the process. That is why Arch is what I recommend to novices who want to learn Linux (I make sure I hold their hand through the process of course).

"I want the truth!" "You can't HANDLE the truth!"

dtw · 2006-10-12 13:52:16

shadowhand wrote:

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.

Well, it's worth pointing out that previously binary pkgs built from code taken from RCS were forbidden in the official repos. Clearly that has now completely changed. Previously the suffix told you what RCS you needed to build the pkg, now you won't _have_ to build them yourself, where as before you _had_ to.

Does this change also mean full support for RCS code checkout in makepkg should be considered? Is versionpkg still a "best choice" for RCS binary builds? If so should it be officially adopted? I know I don't want to keep maintaining it (Penguin, I will make that patch though )

Maybe you could base the suffix around a new name for versionpkg? Rename versionpkg as a unique tool for building these pkgs, say "chomp", then all the pkgs makedepend on chomp and are suffixed -chomp.

That'd make it super clear. If all the src checkout was handled in an official build app/makepkg wrapper (i.e. "chomp") you could tidy up the PKGBUILDs a great deal. Obviously we could never do that with versionpkg as RCS building support was totally unofficial - now you have the power to make it completely official and define your own usage paradigm

I hope that provides a useful perspective.

shadowhand · 2006-10-13 01:44:57

I think the conclusion here is that there is no simple way to make this change right now, because of the reasons mentioned by dtw and because of the AUR.

detto · 2006-10-13 07:26:04

Mh, damnit voted before i thought about it :?
Im also for keeping -cvs -git -svn -devel.
I love this. For me its a feature because i know without searching for the PKGBUILD where the pkg come from and is made from. For example "gaim" has a devel (the beta3) a -svn version too and the standard 1..5.0 without suffix. Thats ideal if you ask me and should be kept

onearm · 2006-10-13 08:17:07

Never been confused by -cvs/-svn/-git but I understand that it may be. I vote for -devel or something more clear to the n00b like -unstable (but maybe this one can generate further confusion, aren't there packages which use already the unstable name?), but honestly it's better to keep the system as it is now

deficite · 2006-10-13 17:47:38

dtw wrote:

That'd make it super clear. If all the src checkout was handled in an official build app/makepkg wrapper (i.e. "chomp") you could tidy up the PKGBUILDs a great deal. Obviously we could never do that with versionpkg as RCS building support was totally unofficial - now you have the power to make it completely official and define your own usage paradigm

I've always felt we should move to a unified way of handling cvs/svn/etc. packages. If we ever do adopt "chomp" to do this, I would be in support of changing the suffix to -chomp. Otherwise I feel that it will be better just to maintain the current suffices.

clarence · 2006-10-14 12:15:51

dev or devel is more of a common term between distros and OS's imho. I don't mean to be rude; inventing new acronyms or terms for software in progress seems like complicated overkill.

dtw · 2006-10-14 14:28:54

well, if you read the thread you'd realize why we can't use dev or devel anyway...

Klette · 2006-10-14 16:39:27

-snap/-snapshot seems nice. vote on those from me

lietuva · 2007-05-13 20:58:58

-cvs/-svn/... is excellent. Just add 'developement version' to the descriptions and it won't be confusing at all.

Arch Linux

#26 2006-10-12 09:43:03

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

#27 2006-10-12 13:11:27

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

#28 2006-10-12 13:25:24

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

#29 2006-10-12 13:52:16

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

#30 2006-10-13 01:44:57

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

#31 2006-10-13 07:26:04

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

#32 2006-10-13 08:17:07

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

#33 2006-10-13 17:47:38

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

#34 2006-10-14 12:15:51

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

#35 2006-10-14 14:28:54

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

#36 2006-10-14 16:39:27

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

#37 2007-05-13 20:58:58

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

Board footer