Am 14.10.2010 09:27, schrieb Ng Oon-Ee: > 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. > >
Yes this is a discussable point.
