On 2 December 2010 22:01, Kaiting Chen <[email protected]> wrote: > A little tangent but from this page it seems to me that a '-git' or '-svn' > suffix should only be applied when there is a version of the package without > that suffix in the name; this is to differentiate between the 'stable' and > the 'development' version of the same package. > > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/VCS_PKGBUILD_Guidelines > > In his AUR page there are some packages with '-svn' or '-git' suffixes that > do not have non-suffixed counterparts. Is this correct? I would like to > update that wiki page to explain the convention more clearly. --Kaiting.
OK, let me get this right. You mean that when for eg. a software only has a development source tree and no tarball, it should just be 'package' and not 'package-vcs'? If so, I don't think that would be proper. If a PKGBUILD fetches development sources, it should have a development suffix. However, exceptions can be made sometimes. Personally, I know of at least one upstream that does not directly offer a tarball, but instead has (or rather had) an SVN tag that distributors could check out. This package would then be named without a vcs suffix.
