Proper naming for development/unstable releases?

City-busz · 2011-01-14 16:39:05

What is the proper name for the development or unstable releases of packages in AUR? Currently there are three different naming schema used:
google-chrome-dev: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=27031
opera-devel: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=33276
libopensync-unstable: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=16668

What do you think, which should be used?

Stefan Husmann · 2011-01-14 20:59:01

I do not mind much, but maybe -unstable is the best, because in other distros -dev or -devel suit a complete different purpose. AFAIK there are no strong rules about that, though.

Inxsible · 2011-01-14 21:02:48

trouble is that since AUR is a user repository where anyone can upload a PKGBUILD, there is no way to enforce a rule like that. I could name i3-git as cleopatra and it would still work

City-busz · 2011-01-14 22:07:14

Yes, but I think a recommendation could be useful on wiki page.

wonder · 2011-01-14 22:53:21

City-busz wrote:

Yes, but I think a recommendation could be useful on wiki page.

add it

ngoonee · 2011-01-15 00:05:39

I like -devel since not all development releases are unstable. And if its REALLY unstable it shouldn't be in the AUR anyway, what we really mean is that its in development and might not be completely stable.

Arch Linux

#1 2011-01-14 16:39:05

Proper naming for development/unstable releases?

#2 2011-01-14 20:59:01

Re: Proper naming for development/unstable releases?

#3 2011-01-14 21:02:48

Re: Proper naming for development/unstable releases?

#4 2011-01-14 22:07:14

Re: Proper naming for development/unstable releases?

#5 2011-01-14 22:53:21

Re: Proper naming for development/unstable releases?

#6 2011-01-15 00:05:39

Re: Proper naming for development/unstable releases?

Board footer