On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 19:31:07 +0200 Xyne <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2010-09-09 18:49 +0300 (36:4) > Evangelos Foutras wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Antonio Lucas > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > hi, > > > > > > wwt-svn[1] and wit-svn[2] are the same package. Both maintainers > > > are active, and both packages get the latest version from svn of > > > this package (even the packages containing a version on them). > > > what do you guys do in this situations? > > > > > > > > > <http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37504>[1] > > > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=34239 > > > [2] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=37504 > > > > > > abracos > > > Antonio Lucas > > > > I'm not sure which package should go; wit-svn has a more correct > > name, but wwt-svn was uploaded first and has more votes. > > > > I'm CC'ing the respective maintainers so they can decide which > > package we should keep. :] > > The correct name should always take precedence in my opinion, > regardless of the number of votes or upload date. It provides a more > consistent system. > > In this case I would recommend that the original uploader be allowed > to adopt the correctly named package.
I'm the maintainer of the wwt-svn package, the original name of the program was "Wiimms WBFS Tools", later renamed to "Wiimms ISO Tools". I didn't catch the rename fast enough and so Gordin created the wit-svn package. On one hand I don't care either way which package remains, on the other hand I'll maintain my PKGBUILD anyway, since I neet those tools in a semi-professional way. (I "maintain" a Wii in a public place and the WBFS stuff gives us the possibility to restrict access to the Wii itself and the original media.) The build-system is homegrown and needs quite a bit of handholding to get a proper package. From a glance at the two PKGBUILDs it seems, mine is a bit more up to current standards, while Gordin's seems to "do" more, though I'm not clear to what purpose.
