On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 05:13:56PM +0100, Cédric Girard wrote: > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Xyne <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Packages that are built from vcs but which are based on some form of > > upstream > > "release" should not include the tag in the package name. > > > > I think the simplest rule of thumb would be that if the same PKGBUILD > > generates > > different binary packages depending on when makepkg was run, then it should > > include the suffix in the name. > > > > > These two rules are not the same. For instance the package xbmc-svn [1] is > based on fixed svn version that does not corresponds to any "release" > upstream. It is just tested svn revisions (by the packager) as not every > revisions are usable. > > [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=20156 >
So doesn't that just mean that we have some packages currently in existance which break the guideline we're trying to establish? I propose that this particular package is named incorrectly, and would be better off as xbmc-devel. dave
