On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:00:14 +0300 Νῖκος Θεοδώρου <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello. > > Up until a few months ago, the sources were stored in a ftp server, so > naming was simple. > > Then they only kept git ("master" and "stable"). The [extra] package > [1] pulls from git, but it's called "libx264". Initially I called the > lib32 version lib32-libx264 as well, but then gS644 in the comments > suggested the stable-git suffix and I went on with it (the TUs didn't > raise an objection at the merge request). Now JonnyJD raises the > naming issue again. The whole discussion can be found at the > package's comments [2]. > > To be honest, I'm not sure how the package should be named, so I am > asking here for a final judgement on the matter. > > > [1] > http://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/trunk/PKGBUILD?h=packages/x264 > [2] http://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/lib32-libx264-stable-git/ > > Thank you. > Nikos
Nikos, The [extra] package is always set to some particular commit from stable branch. I don't have particular opinion on your question, but as a user, I would expect lib32-libx264 to provide the same commit as the repositories counterpart do, -git to track master branch and -foobar-git to track commits in foobar branch. Bartłomiej
pgpnFWL5aSRPs.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
