You are not logged in.

#1 2016-05-04 17:11:56

luzvioleta
Member
From: Argentina
Registered: 2016-05-04
Posts: 2

Renaming a package

Hello everyone ! o/
I'm recently learning about mantaining AUR packages to take care of swift-bin and swift-development-bin (both official snapshots from swift.org). I've been following the swift mailing list for some time, and just noticed that those two packages should probably be renamed to something like swift2-bin (which is current stable branch) and swift3-bin (which is development, but has ben branched as part of stabilization process).

Is it possible? Any guidelines to do it the proper® way?

Thanks for reading,
Regards.

Offline

#2 2016-05-04 17:17:01

Scimmia
Fellow
Registered: 2012-09-01
Posts: 11,461

Re: Renaming a package

I would disagree with your renaming. In Arch, a name without a version generally means the latest stable version, so swift-bin is correct. The other *could* be renamed, but it becomes useless after swift 3 is released. If you want to keep it around as a development snapshot, the current name is better.

Offline

#3 2016-05-04 17:46:26

luzvioleta
Member
From: Argentina
Registered: 2016-05-04
Posts: 2

Re: Renaming a package

Fair enough. So when the 3 branch is the new swift-bin (stable) and the development one moves on, I could then make another AUR package called swift2-bin?
Because the package is a programming language, and somehow I wanted to keep a PKGBUILD of the branch 2.x around, even if it's not the current stable/release (as an oldstable/compat kind of fashion) because the branch 3 will break syntax/API hardly.

Makes sense? Thanks for answering so quickly !

Regards.

Offline

#4 2016-05-04 17:53:54

Scimmia
Fellow
Registered: 2012-09-01
Posts: 11,461

Re: Renaming a package

luzvioleta wrote:

Fair enough. So when the 3 branch is the new swift-bin (stable) and the development one moves on, I could then make another AUR package called swift2-bin?
Because the package is a programming language, and somehow I wanted to keep a PKGBUILD of the branch 2.x around, even if it's not the current stable/release (as an oldstable/compat kind of fashion) because the branch 3 will break syntax/API hardly.

Makes sense? Thanks for answering so quickly !

Regards.

Yep, that would be the normal way of handling things. See python/python2.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB