You are not logged in.
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
I think -scm would be good because RCS is a revision control system itself.
pacman -S rcs
if you don't believe me.
Offline
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>.
Gruß, Johannes
http://www.hehejo.de
http://gallery.hehejo.de/jo
Offline
-snapshot?
Offline
why not something simple to understand like -source or -dev ?
Offline
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
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
-snapshot +1
Offline
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
Another one on -snapshot
Offline
Vote: -dev
Offline
-snapshot
Offline
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
+1 for -dev
- Rpg Cyco
Offline
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
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
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
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
-devel or -dev ++
Offline
Offline
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
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
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
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
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