On 3/16/11, Ng Oon-Ee <[email protected]> wrote: > Package foo exists in [extra], and foo-devel in the AUR. > > foo-devel is obviously based off unstable tarball releases (otherwise it > would be foo-git, foo-svn, foo-hg or similar). > > So let's say foo is at version 4.0 (stable), should foo-devel stay at > 3.9 (the last beta/rc/unstable release) or update to 4.0? > > Just a general question. My gnucash-devel package is currently pretty > much identical to the one in [extra], and it does seem a bit unnecessary > because the project itself does not currently have unstable releases.
At least when I'm using -dev(el) packages I do so to get the most bleeding edge releases of that specific software (decluding svn/hg/git versions - unless recommended by upstream). I don't even understand how could anybody cope with just having unstable releases :). I myself quickly get annoyed by the crashes/lagginess/whatever. But as Jan said, it's a preference question decided by the maintainer (you). Det
