On 5 April 2013 22:19, WorMzy Tykashi <wormzy.tyka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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? > Oops. Forgot my reference. [0] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_CVS_%26_SVN_PKGBUILD_guidelines