2012/3/26 Det <nimetonmaili@gmail.com>:
> I guess this is a good summary of all the talk in virtualbox-sun's comment
> section[1].
>
> The reality here is that virtualbox-bin[2] has evolved into something _at
> least_ as good as virtualbox-sun. While it's true that -sun is the original
> one it's also the one with the incorrect naming, a bit slower updates (by a
> day or so) and less votes (229 vs -bin's 3430). Because we can't justify
> keeping duplicated work around just to make everybody happy, one of them has
> to go.
>
> Even if -sun was to stay here the "better" stuff in -bin would have to be
> implemented there first before the removal and the renaming. When put
> together with the comment/vote merge it's starting to sound a bit pointless
> (taken how we can just remove that one).
>
> I know what I'd do but it's not my decision: it's yours.
>
> [1] virtualbox-sun = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31996
> [2] virtualbox-bin = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=51727
>
> * * * * * * Det
It is interesting how both provide the same version of the same
softwaer, but have totally different depedency listed. For example,
"kernel26-headers" for virtualbox-sun.
03-26-2012, 04:30 PM
Det
Removal request: virtualbox-sun
On 26.3.2012 19:06, rafael ff1 wrote:
2012/3/26 Det<nimetonmaili@gmail.com>:
I guess this is a good summary of all the talk in virtualbox-sun's comment
section[1].
The reality here is that virtualbox-bin[2] has evolved into something _at
least_ as good as virtualbox-sun. While it's true that -sun is the original
one it's also the one with the incorrect naming, a bit slower updates (by a
day or so) and less votes (229 vs -bin's 3430). Because we can't justify
keeping duplicated work around just to make everybody happy, one of them has
to go.
Even if -sun was to stay here the "better" stuff in -bin would have to be
implemented there first before the removal and the renaming. When put
together with the comment/vote merge it's starting to sound a bit pointless
(taken how we can just remove that one).
I know what I'd do but it's not my decision: it's yours.
It is interesting how both provide the same version of the same
softwaer, but have totally different depedency listed. For example,
"kernel26-headers" for virtualbox-sun.
Yeah. -sun is a bit outdated there too.
03-26-2012, 09:39 PM
Seblu
Removal request: virtualbox-sun
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Det <nimetonmaili@gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess this is a good summary of all the talk in virtualbox-sun's comment
> section[1].
>
> The reality here is that virtualbox-bin[2] has evolved into something _at
> least_ as good as virtualbox-sun.
> While it's true that -sun is the original one it's also the one with the incorrect naming
If i remember correctly first was virtualbox_bin[1] (which was
renammed into virtualbox-bin last year).
> Even if -sun was to stay here the "better" stuff in -bin would have to be
> implemented there first before the removal and the renaming.
I don't understand your sentence. Is there something missing in -bin
that you need?
I remind everyone is encouraged to use the version in the official
repositories[2].
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Det<nimetonmaili@gmail.com> wrote:
While it's true that -sun is the original one it's also the one with the incorrect naming
If i remember correctly first was virtualbox_bin[1] (which was
renammed into virtualbox-bin last year).
Even better.
Even if -sun was to stay here the "better" stuff in -bin would have to be
implemented there first before the removal and the renaming.
I don't understand your sentence. Is there something missing in -bin
that you need?
No, I mean that if -bin was removed, then the missing "-bin stuff"
should be implemented in -sun, before -bin was removed and -sun renamed
to -bin. But this was when I still thought that -sun was the original
one. Since it's not, there's no reason anymore for keeping it.
I remind everyone is encouraged to use the version in the official
repositories[2].
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Det <nimetonmaili@gmail.com> wrote:
> No responses in a week. Trust me, -bin[1] covers everything that -sun[2]
> does. In addition it's the original one and it has more votes.
>
> We don't need both.
>
> [1] virtualbox-bin = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=51727
> [2] virtualbox-sun = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31996
>
> * * * * * * *Det
--
Cordially,
*Alexander Rødseth
*Arch Linux Trusted User
*(xyproto on IRC, trontonic on AUR)
04-03-2012, 03:10 PM
Seblu
Removal request: virtualbox-sun
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Det <nimetonmaili@gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess this is a good summary of all the talk in virtualbox-sun's comment
> section[1].
>
> The reality here is that virtualbox-bin[2] has evolved into something _at
> least_ as good as virtualbox-sun. While it's true that -sun is the original
> one it's also the one with the incorrect naming, a bit slower updates (by a
> day or so) and less votes (229 vs -bin's 3430). Because we can't justify
> keeping duplicated work around just to make everybody happy, one of them has
> to go.
>
> Even if -sun was to stay here the "better" stuff in -bin would have to be
> implemented there first before the removal and the renaming. When put
> together with the comment/vote merge it's starting to sound a bit pointless
> (taken how we can just remove that one).
>
> I know what I'd do but it's not my decision: it's yours.
>
> [1] virtualbox-sun = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31996
> [2] virtualbox-bin = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=51727
>
> * * * * * * Det
Removal request: virtualbox-sun
