I hate do do this: but can one of you guys comment on this thread on
pacman-dev. Dan hasn't replied to my last email explaining why I want
the patch in, and I think it would be better if someone else "bump"ed
the thread.
Current pacman in Parabola has this patch backported to version 4. I
guess it wouln't be terrible to continue maintaining the patch when v5
hits, but it would be really nice to have this upstream.
--
Happy hacking
~ Luke Shumaker
--- Begin Message ---
At Fri, 29 Aug 2014 17:16:11 -0500,
Dan McGee wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Luke Shumaker <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > This is perfectly fine with libalpm; it was only makepkg that was more
> > strict with pkgrel than pkgver.
> >
> Correct.
>
> However, did you look at the NEWS file? This was an explicit change made in
> pacman 4.1.0 (commit 708a22757) to tighten the format of this value. I'd be
> -1 on this change, unless someone can show me a real reason pkgrel should
> be complicated, given this is something the packager influences and we're
> not trying to copy or match an upstream value.
Sorry, I did not catch that in NEWS.
In my opinion, this is most useful to other distros that are
downstream from Arch. For example, in Parabola, packages that are
repackaged/modified from Arch, they like to set it like
`pkgrel=${archrel}.${parabolarel}`. If an Arch package uses both
places, then Parabola's scheme breaks. There's also been discussion
that it would be nice to be able to do
`pkgrel=${archrel}.parabola${parabolarel}`.
For kernel modules that must be built against a specific version of
the kernel, it would be nice to be able to do
`pkgrel=${_pkgrel}.${_basekernel}`, which would make it so one
wouldn't have to mess around with pkgrel when just bumping
_basekernel.
Sans the desire to stick 'parabola' into pkgrel, I guess at a minimum,
that really advocates changing it from
[[ $i != +([0-9])?(.+([0-9])) ]]
to
[[ $i != +([0-9])*(.+([0-9])) ]]
> > Further, the former error message about invalid pkgrel formats claimed that
> > pkgrel was a "decimal", which would mean that `1.1 == 1.10`. This was not
> > the case; alpm parsed pkgrel as a version, not a decimal. In that light,
> > enforcing /[0-9]+(\.([0-9]+)?/ on a version spec seems silly.
If you do reject this change, would you at least accept a patch
clarifying that it is a simplified 'version', not a decimal?
--
Happy hacking,
~ Luke Shumaker
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.parabolagnulinux.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
