On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 2:39 AM, Kwang Moo Yi via arch-general < arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 01/09/16 20:32, Chi Hsuan Yen via arch-general wrote: > >> Yep that's my expectation. There were several times, that a new version >> with important fixes (fix for YouTube downloading, etc.) was released, and >> lots of people came to our issue tracker for "broken" YouTube downloading >> because the Arch version was not updated yet. >> > > In this case, wouldn't it suite better to be in the AUR always? >From "Rules of submission" section on Arch Wiki: [1] Check the official package database <https://www.archlinux.org/packages/> for the package. If *any version* of it exists, *do not* submit the package. If the official package is out-of-date, flag it as such. I'm not sure whether my case is an exception to this rule or not. > It would be practically impossible that a package to be reviewed and > signed so often. Also, my personal expectation on the official packages is > to be more stable than that. > Unlike other programs, most new youtube-dl bugs come from changed websites, not changes in youtube-dl itself. For example if YouTube changes how videos are delivered, we have to update relevant codes and ask users to update as soon as possible. > > Cheers, > Kwang > [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository
