On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 02:01:47 +0100, Christian Rebischke wrote:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 05:12:19PM -0500, Eli Schwartz wrote:
No one is going to delete an AUR package (much less a repo package :p) for a confusingly nonstandard pkgver, we don't even delete packages that are *far* worse.
There are reasons why AUR is also called 'unsupported'. If the people would only push nice and clean AUR packages into the AUR, I guess the AUR would be nearly empty.
And I neither want to force a maintainer to do something, nor that a package gets deleted, but a maintainer, as well as a user might want to learn from mistakes. On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 19:52:05 -0500, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
In short, if you don't like what you see on the AUR and it's not actually harmful, ignore it. You'll be happier you did.
Thank you for the advice. This is, in fact, what I already do (if it affects the built package in any way). :)
And I do it, too. Btw. I didn't edit this particular unnamed PKGBUILD, since I can live with "_" instead of ".". I'm used to something similar from Debian and Ubuntu, where at least package releases are "very colourful". In my experiences upstream usually uses "1.2-3-gabcdef7", which conflicts a little bit with the "-" used for the Arch package release. Since the commits are part of the package version "1.2.r3.gabcdef7" seems to be a good compromise. I'm fine with anything else, just would prefer if all packages share the same formatting. "." as well as "_" and "+" are ok for me, just that one package does use another formatting than another package makes it difficult to digest the read versions.