On 5 April 2013 20:17, Doug Newgard <scimmi...@outlook.com> wrote: > On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 15:11:40 -0400, luoli...@gmail.com wrote: > > On 04/05/2013 10:05 AM, Jan Alexander Steffens wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Cédric Girard <girard.ced...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > > > >> Hello, > > >> > > >> I was wondering, as I am updating my PKGBUILDs to use the new VCS > > >> features of pacman, if this specific case need an epoch increase for > > >> those packages. > > >> > > >> Packages version were generated from the date (eg 20130401) and thus > > >> will probably be bigger than new versions from the tags (eg > > >> 0.3.1.32.gfb4117d). Thus an epoch increase should be needed to have a > > >> correct behavior. > > >> > > >> But it seems most packagers are not increasing the epoch as they are > > >> switching to this new versionning scheme. > > >> > > >> Is there a recommendation on this? > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Cédric Girard > > >> > > > Yes, the correct thing to do would be bumping epoch for every new > release > > > of the PKGBUILD. > > I think you mean it just needs to be bumped this once, since the tag > > versions are going to be increasing from here onward... (unless, of > > course, the pkgver() function is changed in a way that this is not true). > > I'm sure an epoch is the correct way to handle this, but we have to > remember this is the AUR, not the official repos. The officially supported > way of building from the AUR is using makepkg then install with pacman, in > which case the epoch won't make a difference. It will stop pacman from > giving you a warning, and in return you're stuck with an epoch for the life > of the package. If the maintainer wants to make it easier for AUR helpers, > go ahead and add the epoch, but I don't see it as required in this case. >
Is the new way of pkgver-ing VCS packages mandatory? The VCS Guidelines[0] isn't clear, it just says that pkgver is more controllable, and lists a few examples. Would it be wrong for me to continue using the date +%Y%m%d versioning system, or is up to individual maintainers to choose which system is more appropriate?