On Tue Nov 22 08:07:20 UTC 2016 Bennett Piater bennett at piater.name wrote:
> On 11/22/2016 08:58 AM, brent timothy saner via aur-general wrote:
> > what i'd recommend is instead use 8.5 -> 8.5.1 -> 8.5.2
> >
> > and then have a _pkgver= variable with the actual string, if it's needed
> > later in the build. i.e.:
>
> It's ugly, but I guess bumping epoch is the only solution here.
>
> Cheers,
> Bennett
Dear god no.
In this case, the project maintainers themselves luckily stepped in,
[1] but bumping epoch on every major release *is* the ugliest thing
you could do. Once you add it, that "13:9.4pl3-3" will follow and
you'll never get rid of it. You'll have to start a new package.
It's one of only *two* variables with a red warning on the Wiki:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PKGBUILD#Version
The "8.5.pl3-1" would have been a very standard way of solving this,
and the suggested more plain "8.5.3-1" is fine as well. With JDK/JRE,
[2][3] I personally do (or get to do) 8u0 -> 8u1 -> 8u2, etc., as you
only get that inconsistent "u0" with one release, but the thing will
go on for 3-4 years. [4]
[1] = https://coq.inria.fr/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=5221
[2] = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/jdk/
[3] = https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/jre/
[4] = http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html
Det
Hi,
I maintain a package in the AUR [1], coq [2], whose upstream versioning
scheme is a bit strange.
Basically, they release versions in the following order:
8.4 → 8.4pl1 → 8.4pl2 → 8.5 → 8.5pl1 → etc
This breaks pacman's comparison function. For instance, with a local
repo, pacman does not consider that the new version 8.5pl3-1 is newer than
the old 8.5-1:
# pacman -Syu
warning: coq: local (8.5-1) is newer than repo (8.5pl3-1)
This makes sense given the documented behaviour of pacman(8):
When upgrading, pacman performs version comparison to determine which
packages need upgrading. This behavior operates as follows:
Alphanumeric:
1.0a < 1.0b < 1.0beta < 1.0p < 1.0pre < 1.0rc < 1.0 < 1.0.a < 1.0.1
Numeric:
1 < 1.0 < 1.1 < 1.1.1 < 1.2 < 2.0 < 3.0.0
What is the best solution to deal with this? I think I can either map the
scheme to a more reasonable one (e.g. "8.5.pl3" instead of "8.5pl3"), or
bump the epoch when needed.
Thanks,
Baptiste
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/coq/
[2] https://coq.inria.fr/