On Sat 11 Sep 2010 20:36 +0300, Det wrote: > On 9/10/10, Lukáš Jirkovský <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 10 September 2010 13:09, Evangelos Foutras <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Sorry, I'm having a hard time deciding what goes and what stays. > >> > >> If another TU wants to jump in and handle this request, please do. > > > > Wow, what a mess. > > > > For now I would certainly leave the songbird-svn. It has correct name > > and it seems to be quite good PKGBUILD. > > > > I'd prefer if the songbird-auto-nightly was renamed to the > > songbird-nightly-bin and then removed. > > > > I think songbird should be removed, because it's in fact the same as > > songbird-svn. I don't see any reason to keep it because it seems that > > they do not release any source tarballs. However it has just too much > > votes to remove it. > > > > Lukas > > > > Jesus, well the nicest thing to do then would be to first replace > "songbird-nightly" with "songbird-auto-nightly" and _then_ delete: > "songbird", "songbird-auto-nightly" and "songbird-nightly-bin". > > "Songbird" does indeed have a lot of votes, which is just too bad, but > if "the binary version of Songbird" has to be "songbird-bin", then > "the SVN version of Songbird" has to also be "songbird-svn"... unless > that logic would need the developers to release a versioned source > too... which they don't.
Some projects might not have tarball releases. So in that case the package name could remain as the project's name without having to append -scm. Heh, or maybe we should start naming all packages based on how the sources are fetched.
