On 21 August 2015 at 12:20, Sam S. <[email protected]> wrote: > As the current maintainer of both packages, I'm not convinced that > merging them is a good idea. Having them separate, makes it easier for > people to specify what soname exactly they need without having to > worry about implementation details like which is a symlink etc. > > In an ideal world it could be a single package that > provides=(libtiff3 libtiff4) so that other packages could continue > to list either of them in their 'depends' array. But afaik, the AUR > API and AUR helpers don't support that. > > On the other hand, Doug's suggestion does make sense to me: > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 5:06 AM, Doug Newgard <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Make > > libtiff3 the main package (since that's the upstream soname), then make a > > separate libtiff4 package that just has the symlinks and nothing else. > There's > > a lot of other simplification I would do, as well, but it should work > as-is. > > I'll await the outcome of this merge request; if they stay separate > I'll probably go ahead and do that. > Also, can you elaborate on those other simplifications? (Maybe on the > package comment page rather than here.) >
That's a decent point. As a maintainter I'd rather still maintain a single package though. Maybe it'd be an idea to use a single pkgbase for both packages? I'm pretty sure that would allow other packages to name that as dependency, though I don't know if the current packages are easily migrate-able. But yeah, making libtiff3 the main package would be the least I'd do, especially because it makes more sense as a dependency circle (version 4 relying on version 3 rather than version 3 relying on 4, which looks like an old version relying on a new one). Sincerely, Joost Bremmer We apologize for the inconvenience"
