On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 09:14 +0200, Stefan Husmann wrote: > Am 14.10.2010 08:42, schrieb Ng Oon-Ee: > > I just noticed that libreoffice-new has been uploaded. Contrary to the > > last post in https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=105664 the old > > libreoffice in the AUR has not yet (to my searching) been deleted (I > > think its been reuploaded). Obviously, its exactly the same. > > > > I wonder what the point is of having libreoffice-new though. It's > > basically just extracting of some rpms, as compared to the libreoffice > > from [testing]. > > > > I propose that libreoffice[1] and libreoffice-new[2] be deleted. The > > author should reupload as libreoffice-bin. If a TU agrees, I volunteer > > to email the author. > > > > [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=41792 > > [2] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=41793 > > > > > Hello, > > I deleted libreoffice again because of the name clash. But in the past > we allowed binary versions or beta versions of some projects, so why not > doing here? > > I would not recommend its usage, but let people decide. > > Regards Stefan
I was just thinking the name is misleading, and -bin is a better name.
