On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:30:55PM +0100, Xyne wrote: > Bernardo Barros wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I suggest to remove ardour3-svn from AUR. It's not ready for use > > yet. See message from the author below. > > > > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=34433 > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Paul Davis <[email protected]> > > Date: 2010/12/20 > > Subject: Re: [LAU] Ardour3 > > To: Bernardo Barros <[email protected]> > > Cc: Fabio <[email protected]>, [email protected] > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Bernardo Barros > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > It's not really a oficial arch binary package, paul.. > > > it's a arch user script that builds from svn. > > > > that doesn't make a whole heap of difference. people who use svn are > > at least 1 step closer to understanding that the first step after a > > crash is "svn update". people using arch build scripts ... not so > > much, i suspect. moreover, people using svn are probably (hopefully!) > > on the commit mailing list and can see that the version they got this > > morning is now 8 commits old by lunchtime. again, people using arch > > build scripts ... not so much > > > I don't agree with him. Any real archer will want to use a PKGBUILD to do > this. > Removing it from the AUR will just force people to recreate the same PKGBUILD > themselves and for no good reason. Admittedly the AUR in combination with the > various AUR helpers makes it easy for a casual user to install the package, > but > I don't think there will be a wave of disinterested users installing the > package. Plus those very same AUR helpers make it trivial to quickly update to > the latest version with a single command. > > I recommend leaving it on the AUR while making it *very* clear that it is > strictly for development and testing, and that users should subscribe to the > upstream mailing list. > > You could do this by including very visible instructions in the post_install > message (along with a once-off post_update message to inform existing users). > > This is only my opinion though. I'm interested in the other TUs' views. > > Regards, > Xyne
This was kind of my take on it. Upstream is still alive, and the package has a fair number of votes. It's heavily in development, but this seems like the kind of thing that the AUR should be supporting. +1 for leaving it. d
