On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 02:48:37AM +0800, Chi Hsuan Yen via arch-general wrote: > 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 If the official package is out-of-date, flag it as such.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. Are the actual releases of youtube-dl particularly more stable than the -git versions? I myself only use the -git package from the AUR, and have never had an issue with it. If this is the case, then I think the current situation is probably fine (-git in AUR, "stable" in official repos). --Sean
